THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  SAN  DIEGO 

LA  JOLLA,  CALIFORNIA 

WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  WITH  OUR 
DEPENDENCIES? 


THE   ANNUAL  ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE    BAR    ASSOCIATION 
OF    SOUTH    CAROLINA 

DELIVERED  IN  COLUMBIA  JANUARY  16,  1903 


MOORFIELD    STOREY 


BOSTON 

GEO.  H.   ELLIS  Co.,  PRINTERS,  *7a  CONGRESS  STREET 
1903 


£ 

7/3 


Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  South  Carolina  Bar: 

It  was  with  peculiar  pleasure  that  I  received  the  invitation 
to  address  you  this  evening,  not  only  because  I  felt  it  to  be 
a  high  personal  compliment,  but  because  it  afforded  fresh  evi- 
dence, if  such  were  needed,  of  how  entirely  the  differences 
that  disturbed  us  a  generation  ago  have  ceased  to  divide  us. 
When  the  secretary,  the  biographer,  the  disciple  of  Charles 
Sumner  is  called  from  Massachusetts  to  address  the  bar  of 
South  Carolina,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  cordial  relations 
which  formerly  existed  between  our  States  are  completely  and, 
I  believe,  forever  restored.  If  I  can,  I  would  carry  you  back 
to-night  to  those  early  days  when  our  fathers  stood  shoulder  to 
shoulder  in  "the  times  that  tried  men's  souls,"  and  join  with 
you  in  renewing  their  pledge  to  support  those  great  truths 
which  South  Carolina  and  Massachusetts  alike  then  held  to 
be  self-evident. 

THE  PRESENT  POSITION  OF  OUR  DEPENDENCIES. 

Our  country  to-day  exercises  absolute  power  over  more 
than  ten  millions  of  human  beings,  —  Filipinos,  Porto 
Ricans,  and  Hawaiians,  —  twice  as  many  as  the  whole  popula- 
tion of  the  United  States  a  century  ago.  Our  dominion  has 
been  established  without  consulting  them  and  against  such 
resistance  as  they  could  make.  They  are  not  American 
citizens,  nor  are  they  likely  to  become  such.  They  are  gov- 
erned by  the  President  and  Congress,  but  they  have  no  voice 
in  the  choice  of  either.  They  have  no  recognized  rights 
under  our  Constitution;  and,  if  the  President  by  executive 
order  or  Congress  by  statute  has  granted  to  them  any  of  the 
rights  secured  by  the  Constitution  to  all  American  citizens, 


they  are  merely  privileges,  which  may  be  recalled  at  pleasure 
by  a  new  order  or  a  new  statute.  If  the  right  of  trial  by  jury 
and  the  right  to  bear  arms,  both  of  which  are  denied  the  Fili- 
pinos, are  not  their  constitutional  rights,  they  have  no  consti- 
tutional rights.  They  have  no  representation  in  the  Congress 
which  taxes  them  and  controls  their  destiny.  In  a  word,  no 
part  of  the  government  under  which  they  live  derives  its 
powers  from  their  consent.  They  are  merely  subjects  of  the 
United  States,  as  absolutely  without  political  rights  as  if 
they  were  subjects  of  Spain. 

The  question  which  now  confronts  the  American  people, 
never  to  be  settled  "  till  it  is  settled  right,"  is  whether  these 
conditions  shall  continue.  What  shall  be  our  permanent 
policy  toward  these  dependent  peoples  ?  No  more  impor- 
tant question  ever  engaged  our  attention ;  and  we  should  con- 
sider it  carefully  and  dispassionately,  as  Americans,  and  not 
as  Republicans  or  Democrats,  for  we  must  all  suffer  alike 
the  consequences  of  any  mistake.  It  becomes  us  to  study 
all  the  ethical  and  political  conditions  of  our  problem, 
to  gather  all  the  light  that  we  can  from  the  experience  of 
others,  and  not  fancy  that  we  have  a  native  genius  for  gov- 
erning our  fellow-men  which  has  been  denied  to  other  nations. 
We  may  be  sure  that  the  essential  qualities  and  tendencies 
of  human  nature  are  the  same,  whatever  the  race  to  which  a 
man  belongs  and  whatever  the  color  of  his  skin ;  and  in  these 
qualities  lie  causes  which  under  like  conditions  produce  like 
effects,  whether  the  scene  be  set  in  Asia,  Africa,  or  Europe, 
and  whether  the  time  be  now  or  two  thousand  years  ago. 

Above  all,  we  must  dare  to  look  the  truth  in  the  face. 
We  gain  nothing  by  deceiving  ourselves.  We  cannot  change 
the  facts  by  refusing  to  see  or  hear  them,  nor  will  any  mis- 
representation of  ours  bend  the  laws  which  govern  mankind 
and  attach  to  our  actions  their  inevitable  consequences.  If 
we  cannot  justify  what  we  have  done  and  what  we  propose, 
let  us  at  least  be  brave  enough  to  admit  it. 


THE  OPPOSING  THEORIES  OF  GOVERNMENT. 

At  the  outset  of  the  discussion  we  are  met  by  two  opposing 
theories.  One  is  that  we  are  a  superior  people,  enjoying  the 
highest  civilization  known  to  man;  that  the  inhabitants  of 
our  dependencies  are  our  inferiors  and  unfitted  to  govern 
themselves;  that,  therefore,  they  have  no  right  to  indepen- 
dence, but  it  is  our  duty  to  take  absolute  control  of  them,  to 
teach  them  our  language,  our  religion,  our  science,  and  grad- 
ually to  bring  them  up  as  nearly  to  our  level  as  their  capacity 
will  admit,  giving  them  from  time  to  time  such  rights  as  we 
think  them  fitted  to  use  wisely ;  that  any  resistance  by  them 
is  an  unjustifiable  insurrection  to  be  sternly  repressed ;  that 
other  civilized  nations  have  thus  dealt  successfully  with  in- 
ferior races,  and  that  we  can  succeed  as  well ;  and,  indeed, 
that  we  have  already  succeeded  beyond  all  reasonable  antici- 
pations. This  is  the  position  of  the  President,  who  in  his 
annual  message  says,  "  Of  Porto  Rico  it  is  only  necessary 
to  say  that "  the  prosperity  of  the  island  and  the  wisdom 
with  which  it  has  been  governed  have  been  such  as  to  make 
it  serve  as  an  example  of  all  that  is  best  in  insular  adminis- 
tration ' ' ;  and  of  the  Philippines :  ' '  No  policy  ever  entered 
into  by  the  American  people  has  vindicated  itself  in  a  more 
signal  manner  than  the  policy  of  holding  the  Philippines. 
The  triumph  of  our  arms  —  above  all,  the  triumph  of  our 
laws  and  principles  —  has  come  sooner  than  we  had  any 
right  to  expect."  How  far  this  is  an  accurate  statement 
may  be  considered  later.  It  is  sufficient  now  to  say  that  it  is 
a  conclusion  reached  after  a  very  brief  experience. 

The  other  theory,  until  lately  maintained  by  us  all,  may 
be  stated  in  the  words  of  Henry  Clay,  when  he  was  urging 
the  recognition  of  the  South  American  Republics  in  1822: 

"  But  it  is  sometimes  said  that  they  are  too  ignorant  to  admit 
of  the  existence  of  free  government.  ...  I  deny  the  alleged 
fact  of  their  ignorance.  I  deny  the  inference  from  the  fact, 
if  it  were  a  fact,  that  they  want  capacity  for  free  government. 
...  I  contend  that  it  is  to  arraign  the  dispositions  of  the 


Almighty  to  suppose  that  he  has  created  beings  incapable  of 
governing  themselves,  and  to  be  trampled  on  by  kings.  Self- 
government  is  the  natural  government  of  man,  and  for  proof 
I  refer  to  the  aborigines  of  our  own  land. 

Lincoln  stated  the  same  view  thus :  — 

"  No  man  is  good  enough  to  govern  another  without  that 
other's  consent.  I  say  this  is  the  leading  principle,  the  sheet- 
anchor  of  American  republicanism. ' ' 

Against  the  assertion  of  President  Roosevelt  touching  the 
results  of  our  short  experience,  let  me  set  the  conclusions  of 
two  eminent  Englishmen,  drawn  from  a  survey  of  human 
history. 

Said  John  Stuart  Mill,  as  clear  a  thinker  as  England  has 
produced : — 

"  The  government  of  a  people  by  itself  has  a  meaning  and 
a  reality,  but  such  a  thing  as  a  government  of  one  people  by 
another  does  not  and  cannot  exist.  One  people  may  keep  an- 
other as  a  warren  or  preserve  for  its  own  use,  a  place  to  make 
money  in,  a  human  cattle  farm,  to  be  worked  fof  the  profits 
of  its  own  inhabitants ;  but,  if  the  good  of  the  governed  is  the 
proper  business  of  a  government,  it  is  utterly  impossible  that 
a  people  should  directly  attend  to  it. "  * 

The  historian  Froude  said : — 

' '  If  there  be  one  lesson  which  history  clearly  teaches,  it  is 
this,  that  free  nations  cannot  govern  subject  provinces.  If 
they  are  unable  or  unwilling  to  admit  their  dependencies  to 
share  their  own  constitution,  the  constitution  itself  will  fall 
in  pieces  through  mere  incompetence  for  its  duties. ' ' 

Or,  as  Lincoln  more  briefly  taught, — 

'  Those  who  deny  freedom  to  others  deserve  it  not  for 
themselves,  and  under  a  just  God  cannot  long  retain  it." 

An  American  may  well  pause  at  the  threshold  of  the  argu- 
ment, and  ask  himself  what  has  happened  to  his  country,  that 
the  truths  which  our  fathers  held  to  be  self-evident  a  century 
and  a  quarter  ago  are  now  denied  by  their  sons ;  but  no  right- 
eous cause  fears  discussion.  Of  these  diametrically  opposite 
views,  which  is  right  ? 

*  "  Representative  Government,"  p.  326. 


THE  FOUNDATION  OF  EACH  THEORY. 

Let  us  ask  ourselves,  in  the  first  place,  What  principles  un- 
derlie these  opposing  theories  ?  Disguise  it  as  we  will,  the 
claim  of  one  people  that  it  is  superior  to  and  therefore  en- 
titled to  rule  another  rests  upon  no  better  moral  foundation 
than  the  heathen  maxim,  ' '  Might  makes  right. ' '  The  ancient 
traveller  Mandeville  stated  a  universal  truth  when  he  said, 
"  For  fro  what  partie  of  the  erthe  that  men  duellen,  other 
aboven  or  beneathen,  it  semethe  alweys  to  hem  that  duellen 
that  thei  gon  more  righte  than  any  other  folke. "  History 
contains  no  instance  of  a  people  admitting  its  inferiority 
and  yielding  on  that  account  to  a  foreign  ruler.  Rome 
conquered  Greece,  Alaric  overran  Italy  and  captured  Rome, 
Constantinople  fell  before  the  Turks.  The  Christian  powers 
of  Europe  could  not  wrest  the  Holy  Land  from  the  infidel. 
Each  conqueror  felt  himself  superior  to  his  vanquished  foe ; 
but  can  it  be  said  that  the  superior  civilization  triumphed  ? 
Switzerland  is  perhaps  the  most  highly  civilized  nation  in 
Europe,  but  its  claim  to  govern  any  other  country  on  that 
account  would  be  preposterous.  As  well  look  to  see  the 
triumphant  prize-fighter  obey  the  gentle  admonitions  of  the 
next  clergyman  as  expect  a  people  to  acknowledge  itself 
inferior,  and  on  that  account  surrender  its  liberty.  The 
nation  that  conquers  may  govern  another ;  but  it  prevails  by 
its  might,  not  by  its  right. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  theory  that  every  people  has  an 
equal  right  to  govern  itself  rests  upon  justice,  the  only  secure 
foundation  for  any  human  institution.  A  nation  which  adopts 
this  principle  concedes  to  every  other  the  same  rights  that 
it  claims  for  itself.  It  may  advise  and  help,  but  not  force 
its  advice  and  help  upon  an  unwilling  neighbor  by  fire 
and  sword.  The  sun,  not  the  wind,  made  the  traveller  take 
off  his  cloak.  If  we  believe  that  Christianity  is  the  highest 
civilization,  can  we  doubt  which  rule  is  most  in  accord  with 
its  spirit  ? 


WHAT  ARE  INFERIOR  RACES  ? 

If  we  concede  that  a  civilized  nation  has  the  right  to 
govern  any  people  who  are  unfit  to  govern  themselves,  who 
shall  decide  that  such  unfitness  exists  ?  Can  the  decision 
safely  be  left  to  the  stronger  nation  ?  Shall  it  be  made  by 
men  who  know  nothing  of  the  weaker  people,  who  have  never 
visited  their  country,  who  do  not  understand  their  language, 
their  traditions,  their  character,  or  their  needs  ?  Shall  it 
be  made  without  hearing  their  representatives  and  learning 
all  that  they  can  tell  about  their  countrymen  ?  Can  we 
be  sure  that  the  judgment  of  the  strong  is  not  affected  by 
appeals  to  national  vanity,  by  apostrophes  to  the  flag,  by 
hopes  of  commercial  advantage,  by  dreams  of  world  power, 
by  the  exigencies  of  party  politics,  by  personal  ambitions  ? 
If  it  is  made  when  passions  and  prejudices  are  excited 
by  war,  is  it  not  likely  to  be  influenced  by  these  ?  If  the 
strong  nation  or  its  rulers  consider  their  own  interests,  is 
their  judgment  to  be  trusted, —  and  is  it  possible  that  they 
should  not  do  so  ?  Nations  who  consent  to  arbitrate  and 
private  litigants  seek  an  impartial  tribunal.  Is  such  a  tribu- 
nal unnecessary  when  the  very  existence  of  a  nation  is  at 
stake  ? 

By  what  standards  is  inferiority  to  be  measured  ?  It  is 
said  that  an  Englishman  thinks  any  one  his  inferior  who 
does  not  speak  the  English  language,  wear  English  clothes, 
eat  English  food,  and  belong  to  the  English  Church.  If  a 
difference  in  language,  raiment,  food,  and  religion  constitutes 
inferiority,  the  question  presents  no  difficulty.  We  may 
learn  a  profound  truth  from  the  history  of  the  word 
hostis,  which,  originally  meaning  ' '  stranger, ' '  came  soon 
to  mean  ' '  enemy. ' '  Men  whom  we  do  not  know  and  whom 
we  cannot  understand,  we  distrust  and  dislike.  They  are 
different,  therefore  inferior.  Rome  spoke  of  ' '  Graecia  men- 
dax."  France  denounces  " Perfide  Albion."  The  Anglo- 
Saxon  insists  that  the  Latin  races  are  habitually  false. 
' '  The  heathen  Chinee  ' '  despises  ' '  the  foreign  dog  ' '  who 


in  brute  strength  tramples  upon  all  that  he  holds  most  sacred. 
Nay,  gentlemen,  even  in  the  same  country  each  section,  each 
province,  each  state,  is  apt  to  think  itself  superior  to  every 
other.  Odious  comparisons  have  not  been  unknown  even 
in  our  own  country,  and  in  the  newspapers  and  speeches  of 
forty  years  ago  we  might  find  language  used  by  Americans 
about  Americans  which  would  well  describe  a  most  inferior 
race.  This  is  human  nature. 

Let  me  take  a  historical  instance.  When  James  II.  brought 
Irish  troops  to  England,  the  feeling  of  the  English  is  thus 
described  by  Macaulay  :  — 

"  No  man  of  English  blood  then  regarded  the  aboriginal 
Irish  as  his  countrymen.  They  did  not  belong  to  our  branch 
of  the  great  human  family.  They  were  distinguished  from 
us  by  more  than  one  moral  and  intellectual  peculiarity. 
They  had  an  aspect  of  their  own,  a  mother  tongue  of  their 
own.  When  they  talked  English,  their  pronunciation  was 
ludicrous,  their  phraseology  was  grotesque.  .  .  .  They  were 
therefore  foreigners ;  and  of  all  foreigners  they  were  the 
most  hated  and  despised :  the  most  hated,  for  they  had  during 
five  centuries  always  been  our  enemies ;  the  most  despised, 
for  they  were  our  vanquished,  enslaved,  and  despoiled 
enemies.  .  .  .  The  Irish  were  almost  as  rude  as  the  savages 
of  Labrador.  [The  Englishman]  was  a  freeman ;  the  Irish 
were  the  hereditary  serfs  of  his  race.  He  worshipped  God 
after  a  pure  and  rational  fashion;  the  Irish  were  sunk  in 
idolatry  and  superstition ;  .  .  .  and  he  very  complacently  in- 
ferred that  he  was  naturally  a  being  of  a  higher  order  than 
the  Irishman,  .  .  .  who  were  generally  despised  in  our  island 
as  both  a  stupid  and  cowardly  people. ' '  * 

Could  the  inferiority  of  the  Filipinos  be  painted  in  stronger 
language  to-day  ?  ' '  Stupid  and  cowardly ! ' '  Strike  from  the 
annals  of  the  English  Parliament  the  speeches  of  Irish 
orators,  from  the  records  of  the  English  army  the  deeds  of 
Irish  generals  and  soldiers,  from  English  literature  the  works 
of  Irishmen,  and  some  of  the  brightest  pages  in  English 
history  would  be  blotted  out.  The  Irish  have  given  to 

*  History  of  England,  ii.  p.  332. 


8 

France  a  president  and  many  an  able  general,  to  Spain  a 
prime  minister,  to  Austria,  Russia,  and  other  European 
countries  soldiers,  prelates,  and  diplomats  of  the  highest 
rank.  In  every  corner  of  the  world,  Irishmen  have  won 
laurels  and  proved  their  valor  and  their  ability.  "  Stupid 
and  cowardly ! ' '  How  completely  has  one  ' '  inferior  race  ' ' 
demonstrated  the  falsity  of  its  oppressor's  verdict  ! 

But  it  will  be  said  that  the  white  man  is  confessedly 
superior  to  the  brown,  the  European  to  the  Asiatic.  Doubt- 
less he  is  in  some  respects.  Doubtless  he  is  not  in 
others.  The  qualities  of  men,  mental,  physical,  and  moral, 
are  various.  One  man  is  a  poet,  another  an  inventor,  a  third 
a  general.  Which  is  superior  ?  So  is  it  with  races.  In  the 
qualities  which  make  for  material  prosperity,  energy,  activity, 
keen  practical  intelligence,  the  European  is  superior.  In 
those  which  contribute  to  spiritual  elevation,  the  Asiatic 
is  at  least  his  equal. 

A  recent  English  writer  says  of  the  Chinese,  "  Courage 
they  have,  and  of  a  high  quality ;  but  for  centuries  they  have 
regarded  force  as  a  less  desirable  method  of  persuasion  than 
an  appeal  to  reason,  and  in  consequence  the  soldier  has  been 
despised  in  proportion  as  the  scholar  has  been  honored." 
Such  a  nation  may  not  resist  a  modern  army;  but  is  its  civili- 
zation inferior  to  that  which  showers  rewards  upon  the  suc- 
cessful general  and  despises  the  scholar  as  a  weakling  ?  * 

Mr.  Meredith  Townsend,  who  is  said  to  know  India  better 
than  any  other  Englishman,  thus  deals  with  the  claim  that 
Asiatics  are  inferior :  — 

"These  Asiatics  who  are  accounted  so  despicable  have 
devised  and  kept  up  for  ages,  without  exhausting  the  soil  or 
importing  food,  a  system  of  agriculture  which  sustains  in 
health  and  even  comfort  a  population  often  thicker  than  that 
of  any  European  State.  They  understand  agricultural 
hydraulics  perfectly,  and  have  executed  hydraulic  works, 
canals,  and  tanks  which  are  the  admiration  of  European 
engineers.  From  the  days  of  Babylon  to  the  days  of  Bombay 
they  have  covered  their  continent  with  great  cities,  some  of 

*Thomson,  "China  and  the  Powers,"  p.  123. 


which  contain  marvels  of  architecture,  while  all  have  been 
warehouses  for  immense  trade,  centres  of  great  banking  sys- 
tems, or  chosen  seats  of  men  who  have  conquered  or  legis- 
lated for  or  administered  great  empires. 

"Asiatics  built  the  Alhambra  and  the  Taj,  the  temples 
above  the  Ghauts  of  Benares,  and  the  fantastic  towers  of 
Nankin.  Asiatics,  unassisted  by  Europeans,  have  carried 
all  the  arts,  save  sculpture  and  painting,  to  a  high  degree  of 
perfection,  so  that  learned  men  have  written  volumes  to  ex- 
plain their  architecture;  and  while  no  pottery  can  excel 
Chinese  porcelain,  no  sword-smith  a  Damascus  blade,  no  gold- 
smith will  promise  to  improve  on  a  Trichinopoly  chain. 

' '  They  have  devoted  such  mental  force  to  the  consideration 
of  the  whence  and  whither  and  the  relation  of  the  visible  to 
the  invisible  that  all  the  creeds  accepted  by  civilized  and 
semi-civilized  mankind  are  of  Asiatic  origin.  All  humanity, 
except  the  negroes  and  the  savage  races  of  America  and 
Polynesia,  regulate  their  conduct  and  look  for  a  future  state 
as  some  Asiatic  has  taught  them. 

"  Europe,  having  accepted  with  hearty  confidence  the  views 
of  Peter  and  Paul,  both  Asiatics,  about  the  meaning  of  what 
their  divine  Master  said,  regards  all  other  systems  of  religious 
thought  with  contemptuous  distaste,  and  sums  them  up  in  its 
heart  as  'heathen  rubbish.'  Yet  Confucius  must  have 
been  a  wise  man,  or  his  writings  could  not  have  moulded  the 
Chinese  mind ;  while  Mohammedanism  has  a  grip  such  as  no 
other  creed,  not  even  Christianity,  possesses,  except  on  a  few 
individuals.  Brahminism  and  Buddhism  alike  rest  upon  deep 
and  far-reaching  philosophies. ' '  * 

Does  it  not  seem  the  height  of  presumption  for  us,  in  our 
ignorance,  to  claim  that  brown  men  are  necessarily  our  in- 
feriors, or  that  Asiatics,  whose  ideas  govern  the  moral  world, 
cannot  govern  themselves  ? 

Said  James  Russell  Lowell, — 

' '  When  the  moral  vision  of  a  man  becomes  perverted 
enough  to  persuade  him  that  he  is  superior  to  his  fellow,  he 
is  in  reality  looking  up  at  him  from  an  immeasurable  distance 
beneath. ' ' 

•  "  Asia  and  Europe,"  pp.  7,  8,  9,  13. 


10 


THE  CONDITIONS  OF  GOOD  GOVERNMENT. 

Let  us  proceed  to  a  more  important  inquiry.  If  our  new 
subjects  cannot  give  themselves  what  we  think  a  good  gov- 
ernment, are  we  likely  to  give  them  a  better  ?  Or  is  Presi- 
dent Schurman  right  in  saying,  "Any  decent  government  of 
the  Filipinos  by  the  Filipinos  is  better  than  the  best  possible 
government  of  Filipinos  by  Americans  ' '  ?  Let  us  consider 
this  question,  bearing  steadily  in  mind  certain  fundamental 
principles. 

First.  Every  government  should  exist  solely  for  the 
benefit  of  the  governed  ;  and,  to  just  the  extent  that  the 
governors  consider  their  own  interests  first,  the  govern- 
ment is  bad.  Power  is  held  in  trust  for  the  good  of  the 
community.  When  he  who  wields  it  uses  it  to  advance  or 
enrich  himself  at  the  expense  of  the  community,  he  violates 
his  trust. 

Second.  The  object  of  every  government  should  be  to 
educate,  develop,  and  elevate  the  people,  increasing  the  hap- 
piness of  the  individual,  not  to  develop  mines,  increase  com- 
merce, and  add  to  the  world's  wealth  without  regard  to  the 
people.  In  a  word,  every  good  ruler  should  try  to  make 
men,  in  f  the  broadest  sense  of  the  term,  not  to  make 
money. 

J^hird.  In  order  to  develop  a  people,  their  rulers  must 
understand  them  and  believe  in  them,  and  must  know  their 
tendencies,  their  limitations,  their  capabilities,  and  their 
prejudices.  No  man  or  woman  succeeds  as  a  teacher  who 
does  not  understand  children,  and  no  man  can  lead  other 
men  up  unless  he  believes  in  them  and  they  believe  in  him. 
If  a  ruler  feels  contempt  for  his  subjects,  there  is  mutual 
repulsion;  and  his  power  to  lead  or  teach  them  is  gone. 
Nothing  galls  a  human  being  so  much  as  an  assumption  of 
superiority  by  another. 

In  the  words  of  Mr.  Townsend, — 

"  All  Asiatics  attribute  to  almost  all  Englishmen  atrocious 
manners,  chiefly  because  Englishmen  are  so  impatient  of 


II 

loss  of  time ;  and  we  are  all  more  irritated  by  habitual  ill. 
manners,  and  especially  ill-manners  indicating  contempt,  than 
by  any  ordinary  oppression. ' ' 

Finally,  human  experience  has  amply  proved  that  no  man 
can  safely  be  trusted  with  absolute  power.  The  struggle  of 
men  for  freedom  has  ever  been  an  attempt  to  create  "  a 
government  of  laws,  and  not  .of  men. ' ' 

In  all  civilized  governments  there  are  two  restraints  on 
power, —  a  constitution  and  public  opinion.  A  constitution, 
whether  embodied  in  a  written  charter  or  in  established  prec- 
edents, contains  the  matured  conclusions  of  a  people  on  po- 
litical questions  which  are  settled.  Public  opinion  is  the 
judgment  of  the  people  on  new  questions  as  they  arise ;  and,  in 
proportion  as  this  opinion  is  enlightened  and  active,  govern- 
ment is  good.  It  is  the  expression  of  public  spirit ;  and,  where 
it  is  apathetic  or  mistaken,  grave  abuses  creep  into  the  State. 
The  fear  of  public  opinion  restrains  every  man  in  public  life, 
and  too  often  makes  him  a  coward ;  but,  if  it  is  to  be  a  force 
working  for  good,  the  people  must  know  the  truth.  They 
must  understand  each  case  aright,  or  their  judgment  will  be 
wrong;  and  the  gravest  responsibility  rests  on  every  public 
man  who  seeks  to  mislead  them  by  falsehood  or  evasion. 

As  abstract  propositions,  men  will  generally  admit  that 
government  should  be  administered  in  the  interest  of  the 
governed,  that  the  primary  object  should  be  the  elevation  of 
the  people,  that  mutual  sympathy  and  understanding  should 
exist  between  the  people  and  their  rulers,  and  that  the  power 
of  the  government  should  be  restrained  by  constitutional 
limitations  and  enlightened  public  opinion.  These  are  essen- 
tial conditions  of  good  government  everywhere.  What  is 
the  chance  of  their  being  observed  in  the  government  of  our 
dependencies  ?  The  answer  to  this  question  will  determine 
whether  Mill  and  Froude  and  Lincoln  are  right  or  wrong  in 
asserting  that  no  nation,  least  of  all  a  republic,  can  success- 
fully govern  a  subject  race. 


12 


OUR    GOVERNMENT    WILL    NOT    BE    FOR    THE    BENEFIT    OF 
THE  GOVERNED. 

To  simplify  the  argument,  let  us  consider  the  case  of  the 
Philippine  Islands.  Will  our  government  there  exist  for  the 
benefit  of  the  governed  ? 

We  took  them  wholly  for  the  benefit  of  their  people.  At 
least,  this  was  the  statement  of  President  McKinley,  who 
made  the  decision,  and  who,  in  announcing  it  to  the  Peace 
Commissioners  at  Paris,  told  them  that  he  had  "  been  in- 
fluenced by  the  single  consideration  of  duty  and  humanity, ' ' 
and  who  subsequently  wrote  to  them :  — 

"  The  trade  and  commercial  side,  as  well  as  indemnity  for 
the  cost  of  the  war,  are  questions  we  might  yield.  They 
might  be  waived  or  compromised,  but  the  questions  of  duty 
and  humanity  appeal  to  the  President  so  strongly  that  he  can 
find  no  appropriate  answer  but  the  one  he  has  marked  out. ' ' 

Whatever  President  McKinley  may  have  persuaded  him- 
self to  think,  is  there  any  other  American  who  seriously 
believes  that  this  people  hold  the  Philippine  Islands  purely 
from  motives  of  philanthropy,  that  the  thousands  of  lives  and 
millions  of  money  which  we  have  spent  there  have  been 
spent  in  a  spirit  of  simple  charity,  that  the  last  four  years 
have  been  an  attempt  to  do  unto  others  what  we  would  that 
they  should  do  to  us  ?  Let  us  be  frank  with  ourselves,  — 
as  frank  as  Senator  Lodge, —  than  whom  no  man  is  closer  to 
the  administration,  and  who  in  his  speech  as  president  of  the 
Republican  convention  in  Philadelphia  said :  — 

' '  We  make  no  hypocritical  pretence  of  being  interested  in 
the  Philippines  solely  on  account  of  others.  While  we  re- 
gard the  welfare  of  these  people  as  a  sacred  trust,  we  regard 
the  welfare  of  the  American  people  first.  We  see  our  duty 
to  ourselves  as  well  as  to  others.  We  believe  in  trade  ex- 
pansion. ' ' 

There  are  no  illusions  about  this  statement.  Our  govern- 
ment in  the  Philippines  exists  '  'first ' '  for  the  interest  of  the 
governors,  not  solely  or  even  principally  for  the  benefit  of 


13 

the  governed.  This  in  the  exact  truth,  and  our  whole 
course  shows  it.  It  is  not  necessary  to  quote  from  the 
speeches  of  Senator  Beveridge  and  hundreds  like  him,  who  in 
the  newspaper  or  on  the  stump  describe  the  material  resources 
of  the  islands,  and  dilate  upon  the  wealth  which  we  shall 
derive  from  them. 

We  need  not  dwell  upon  the  fact  that  after  the  Spanish 
War  was  over  and  there  was  not  in  the  islands  a  Spaniard 
who  was  not  a  prisoner,  we  continued  to  send  thousands  of 
troops  to  the  Philippines.  Why  ?  Not  to  help  the  Filipinos 
up,  but  to  crush  the  anticipated  resistance  of  a  people  whose 
right  to  independence  we  were  determined  to  deny. 

The  real  purpose  of  the  men  who  are  behind  this  policy  of 
conquest  is  disclosed  by  our  conduct.  The  great  forests, 
the  rich  mines,  the  undeveloped  wealth  of  these  islands,  be- 
long to  the  people  who  have  dwelt  there  for  centuries.  Is 
it  our  purpose  to  help  them  to  use  these  resources  for  their 
own  benefit  ?  Have  we  industrial  missionaries  there,  telling 
the  Filipinos  how  Americans  mine,  farm,  cut  lumber,  or 
manufacture  goods  ?  Have  we  financial  missionaries  eager 
to  teach  them  how  profitable  public  franchises  may  be  made, 
how  capital  can  be  combined  through  corporations,  and  the 
small  savings  of  many  made  adequate  to  large  undertakings  ? 
Have  we  thought  for  a  moment  of  giving  them  the  benefit  of 
their  home  market  by  an  appropriate  tariff  or  dreamt  that 
' '  The  Philippines  for  Filipinos  ' '  is  every  whit  as  reasonable 
as  ' '  America  for  Americans  ' '  ? 

On  the  contrary,  the  advocates  of  our  new  policy  expect 
to  find  in  these  islands  chances  for  Americans,  not  Filipinos, 
to  make  fortunes.  Thus  Governor  Taft,  in  his  testimony 
before  the  Senate  Committee  last  spring,  said^hat  he  thought 
the  power  to  grant  franchises  was  ' '  indispensable, ' '  and  that 
through  them  ' '  the  agriculture  of  the  islands  could  be  enor- 
mously developed."  He  proceeded:  "A  franchise  to  an 
agricultural  company, —  I  know  of  a  number, —  accompanied 
by  the  right  to  purchase  something  of  the  public  domain, 
would  bring  a  great  deal  of  capital  to  the  islands,  if  we  can 


14 

judge  from  the  statements  made  to  us  by  those  who  are 
interested,  for  the  raising  of  sugar,  for  the  raising  of  rice, 
cocoanuts.  I  do  not  know  that  there  is  any  proposition  for 
the  raising  of  hemp.  There  is  for  the  raising  of  cotton  and 
for  the  raising  of  tobacco.  You  would  have  to  give  them 
a  part  of  the  public  domain, —  sell  it  to  them.  Of  course,  a 
large  part  of  the  public  domain  ought  to  be  sold, ' '  and  he 
thought  in  ' '  large  tracts. ' ' 

He  stated  also  that  mining  and  timber  could  be  developed 
by  franchises,  and  that  a  mining  law  would  be  necessary, 
but  that  franchise  and  law  would  be  nothing  unless  there 
was  granted  to  the  corporation  "  the  control  of  title  to  cer- 
tain mineral  lands. ' ' 

He  testified  that  American  prospectors  had  been  in  the 
islands,  and  were  increasing ;  and  ' '  they  go  everywhere. 
.  .  .  They  are  generally  from  the  volunteers  who  have 
been  through  the  country,  and  who,  being  confident  of  suc- 
cess in  developing  the  mining  resources,  are  waiting  very 
patiently  —  I  use  the  expression  with  deference  —  for  a  law 
that  will  enable  them  to  get  the  benefit  of  their  discoveries 
and  their  risks  in  going  through  these  mountains  and  finding 
claims. ' ' 

The  extent  of  the  opportunity  is  shown  by  Governor  Taft's 
testimony,  that  there  are  in  the  islands  about  sixty  to  sixty- 
five  million  acres  of  agricultural  land,  and  only  five  million 
acres  under  individual  ownership;  and  the  nature  of  our 
claim  is  shown  by  Senator  Lodge's  remark  when  this  testi- 
mony was  given :  — 

"  The  great  mass  of  lands  of  all  kinds  are  public  lands, 
which  were  crown  lands  under  Spain,  and  are  now  lands  of 
the  United  States. ' ' 

Governor  Taft  concluded :  ' '  We  want  to  make  it  profitable 
for  men  to  go  there,  so  that  they  shall  invest  capital  and 
develop  the  country.  On  the  other  hand,  we  do  not  want  to 
give  to  corporations  or  any  set  of  men  such  control  over  the 
available  land  of  the  islands  that  they  shall  own  not  only  the 
land,  but  shall  own  the  people  on  it ;  and  that  is  the  danger 
in  the  Philippine  Islands." 


is 

The  annual  report  of  the  Philippine  Commission  just  pub- 
lished goes  farther,  and  would  repeal  the  restrictions  imposed 
by  Congress  only  last  summer.  They  say :  ' '  Another  matter 
which  we  desire  to  call  to  your  attention,  and  through  you,  if 
it  meets  with  your  approval,  to  that  of  Congress,  is  the  bur- 
densome restrictions  upon  the  investment  of  capital  in  lands 
and  in  mines  in  these  islands.  As  the  government  o\yns 
65,000,000  of  acres  out  of  70,000,000  in  the  archipelago, 
there  is  substantially  no  danger  that  the  ownership  of  land 
here  can  be  centred  in  a  few  individuals  or  corporations,  if  the 
amount  owned  by  any  one  individual  owner  or  corporation  is 
limited  by  law  to  20,000  or  25,000  acres. 

' '  The  requirement  that  no  corporation  shall  own  more  than 
2500  acres  stops  absolutely  the  investment  of  new  capital  in 
the  sugar  industry  and  in  the  tobacco  industry.  It  takes 
away  any  hope  of  bringing  prosperity  to  these  islands  by  the 
extending  of  the  acreage  in  the  cultivation  of  these  two  im- 
portant products  of  the  archipelago.  It  very  much  interferes 
with  the  investment  of  capital  in  railroad  enterprises,  because 
they  are  naturally  connected  with  the  possibilities  of  trans- 
portation of  sugar  and  tobacco  from  the  interior  to  seaports. ' ' 

There  is  no  doubt  what  all  this  means.  No  one  sug- 
gests that  these  lands  are  held  by  the  United  States  in  trust 
for  the  Filipinos,  and  to  be  developed  for  them  and  by  them. 
They  are  the  property  of  the  United  States,  to  be  used  so 
that  Americans  can  make  money.  How  will  the  Filipinos 
benefit  by  this  development  ? 

Is  it  suggested  that  this  influx  of  American  capital  will 
create  a  demand  for  their  labor  ?  The  answer  is  found  in  the 
recommendations  of  Professor  Jenks  to  the  War  Department, 
just  published.  The  claim  is  loudly  made  among  the  exploit- 
ers that  Filipino  labor  is  worthless ;  and,  dealing  with  this 
question,  Mr.  Jenks  says :  — 

' '  It  is,  then,  possibly,  fair  to  say  that  of  the  ordinary  Fili- 
pino laborers  a  certain  percentage  may  be  secured  who  will 
work  faithfully  and  well,  provided  good  wages  are  paid,  and 
provided  they  are  handled  by  an  employer  with  firmness  and 
skill. 


1,6 

"There  are,  however,  not  enough  Filipinos  who  can  be 
secured  in  the  city  or  from  the  provinces  to  do  anything  like 
the  amount  of  work  required  to  develop  the  resources  of  the 
island  as  rapidly  as  is  desirable.  Doubtless  some  of  the 
American  and  European  employers  of  labor  in  Manila  who 
are  raising  the  greatest  outcry  regarding  the  scarcity  and 
wojthlessness  of  Filipino  labor,  and  who  are  demanding  that 
the  Chinese  be  admitted,  are  wishing  mainly  to  cut  down 
wages  and  secure  cheap  labor.  To  assume  that  this  desire, 
however,  is  the  only  one  which  leads  to  the  demand  for 
Chinese  labor,  is  to  misjudge  the  facts." 

His  recommendation  is  that  the  Philippine  Commission 
be  empowered  to  permit  the  importation  by  employers  of 
Chinese  laborers  under  contract  for  three  years,  the  em- 
ployers to  provide  lodging  and  food,  and  to  return  the  laborer 
to  China  at  the  end  of  the  time.  Under  no  circumstances 
are  they  to  leave  their  district  of  residence  or  to  settle  in 
the  country.  The  Commission  in  its  report,  while  saying 
that,  as  conditions  improve,  "the  supply  and  efficiency  of  the 
Filipino  laborers  will  become  much  more  satisfactory, ' '  yet 
asks  for  power  to  admit  a  limited  number  of  Chinese,  under 
such  restrictions  as  the  Commission  may  impose.  This  is 
clearly  an  entering  wedge,  which  will  be  driven  farther  as 
capital  flows  in  and  grows  stronger.  The  demand  comes 
from  Americans  and  foreigners,  not  from  Filipinos. 

Can  any  one  fail  to  see  the  inevitable  effect  of  such 
a  development  ?  We  who  claim  that  only  a  sense  of  duty 
to  these  people  kept  us  in  the  Philippine  Islands  propose 
now  to  introduce  Chinamen,  who  are  virtually  slaves,  in 
competition  with  native  citizens,  who  require  ' '  good  wages. ' ' 
General  MacArthur  appreciated  the  danger  of  such  a  policy, 
and  from  his  last  report  I  quote :  — 

"Indications  are  apparent  of  organized  and  systematized 
efforts  to  break  down  all  barriers  with  a  view  to  unrestricted 
Chinese  immigration  for  the  purpose  of  quick  and  effective 
exploitation  of  the  islands, —  a  policy  which  would  not  only  be 
ruinous  to  the  Filipino  people,  but  would  in  the  end  surely 


17 

defeat  the  expansion  of  American  trade.  ...  In  this  con- 
nection it  may  not  be  improper  to  state  that  one  of  the 
greatest  difficulties  attending  military  efforts  to  tranquillize 
the  people  of  the  archipelago  arises  from  their  dread  of  sud- 
den and  excessive  exploitation,  which,  they  fear,  would  de- 
fraud them  of  their  natural  patrimony,  and  at  the  same  time 
relegate  them  to  a  status  of  social  and  political  inferiority. 
...  If  a  spirit  of  Philippine  speculation  should  seize  the  pub- 
lic mind  in  the  United  States,  and  be  emphasized  by  means 
of  grants,  concessions,  and  special  franchises  for  the  purpose 
of  quick  exploitation,  the  political  situation  and  permanent 
interests  of  all  concerned  might  be  seriously  jeopardized." 

Governor  Taft  admitted  that  the  Filipinos  who  support  the 
United  States  are  all  very  much  opposed  to  Chinese  immigra- 
tion, and  that  the  fear  of  this  and  the  belief  that  the  United 
States  want  the  islands  for  exploitation  was  one  great  obsta- 
cle to  pacification.  Are  not  the  Filipinos  right ;  and  are  they 
reassured  by  the  statement  of  Governor  Taft,  that  franchises 
should  be  granted  to  Americans,  followed  by  the  act  of  Con- 
gress which  gave  the  Commission  power  to  grant  them  ? 

Let  a  Filipino  speak  for  his  countrymen.  When  asked  if 
they  would  object  to  the  sale  of  lands  and  franchises,  he 
answered  Senator  Carmack  :  — 

"  Most  assuredly  they  would.  Until  the  Filipinos  have  at 
least  internal  control  of  their  own  affairs,  it  would  be  a  most 
improper  thing  to  alienate  the  public  lands,  or  to  dispose  of 
franchises  to  foreign  capitalists.  Under  present  conditions, 
when  the  Filipinos  are  impoverished  by  six  years  of  war, 
when  their  crops  and  towns  have  been  destroyed,  and  when 
their  working  animals  have  almost  all  died  of  rinderpest,  it 
would  be  most  unfair  to  the  Filipinos  to  compel  them  to  com- 
pete with  foreign  capitalists  in  the  purchase  of  public  lands 
and  franchises.  The  foreign  capitalist  could  in  every  case 
outbid  the  native ;  and  the  result  would  be  another  and  a 
worse  Ireland,  with  everything  of  value  in  the  hands  of 
absentees,  whose  only  interest  in  the  country  would  be  what 
profits  could  be  squeezed  out  of  it." 


i8 

Is  this  the  language  of  a  man  so  savage  or  uncivilized  as 
to  lack  the  capacity  for  self-government  ?  How  many  Amer- 
ican voters  could  make  a  better  statement  ? 

We  exclude  the  Chinese  from  our  own  land  lest  they  injure 
our  citizens.  It  is  proposed  that  we  subject  our  helpless  de- 
pendants to  a  competition  which  we,  a  race  of  superior  men, 
are  afraid  to  encounter.  American  capital  is  to  control  lands, 
mines,  forests,  and  public  franchises.  Chinese  labor  is  to  do 
the  work  ;  and  the  resources  which  belong  to  the  Filipinos,— 
"their  patrimony,"  to  quote  General  MacArthur, —  which  we 
should  hold  in  trust  for  them,  will  be  used  to  enrich  us, 
while,  strangers  in  their  own  land,  they  are  pushed  to  the  wall. 
Between  the  upper  and  nether  millstones  of  foreign  capital 
and  foreign  labor  they  will  be  crushed.  What  will  be  their 
future  when  the  resources  of  sixty-five  million  acres  are  con- 
trolled by  foreigners  ?  How  long  can  they  retain  the  little 
land  which  they  now  own  against  such  competition  ?  We 
know  how  hard  it  is  for  us  here  in  America  to  resist  the 
encroachments  of  capital,  which  by  bribing  our  legislative 
bodies  controls  our  public  services  and  obtains  special  privi- 
leges, and  which  buys  seats  in  the  Senate,  foreign  missions, 
nominations,  and  elections.  We  see  in  Pennsylvania  how  it 
breaks  the  laws  intended  to  restrain  it,  and  how  it  deals 
with  its  laborers.  If  we  have  bonds  or  shares  in  great  cor- 
porations, we  have  learned  that  they  do  not  respect  their 
contracts,  and  that  a  minority  interest  has  no  rights  which  a 
majority  is  bound  to  respect.  If  these  things  are  done  here 
against  us  who  vote  and  can  make  or  unmake  our  rulers, 
what  will  be  done  in  distant  Luzon  against  a  race  whom  we 
call  inferior,  and  which  will  have  no  vote  and  no  power  to 
resist  the  oppression  of  foreign  interests  ? 

This  policy  is  not  prompted  by  duty.  This  is  not  "  benevo- 
lent assimilation"  :  it  is  pure  greed.  It  recalls  the  words  of 
Sir  Thomas  More,  quoted  by  Mr.  Hobson  :  "  Everywhere  do 
I  perceive  a  certain  conspiracy  of  rich  men  seeking  their  own 
advantage  under  the  name  and  pretext  of  the  Common- 
wealth." When  men  tell  us  that  we  must  not  "  haul  down 


19 

the  flag,"  can  we  fail  to  recall  Cecil  Rhodes's  remark  that  his 
country's  flag  was  "  the  greatest  commercial  asset  in  the 
world  "  ?  In  the  avowed  purpose  to  govern  the  Philippines  in 
our  own  interest  "first"  is  found  one  reason  why  our  rule  will 
injure,  and  not  benefit  them.  The  words  I  have  quoted  from 
Mill  exactly  fit. 

OUR  GOVERNMENT  WILL  NOT  ELEVATE  THE  PEOPLE. 

It  is  equally  apparent  that  the  second  condition  of  good 
government  will  be  lacking.  The  purpose  of  our  government 
will  not  be  to  develop  the  Filipino  people,  using  their  re- 
sources in  trust  for  that  purpose,  but  to  develop  mines  and 
forests ;  not  to  make  men,  but  to  make  dollars.  That  is  to 
be  the  primary  object  of  our  policy.  We  may  talk  about 
educating  them,  civilizing  them,  elevating  them ;  but  these 
are  general  phrases  by  which  we  deceive  ourselves  and  others. 
"  Where  our  treasure  is,  there  will  our  heart  be  also."  What 
we  really  want  is  the  money.  We  wish  in  a  languid  way 
to  improve  the  Filipinos ;  but  those  who  desire  this,  amid 
their  cares  in  this  country,  will  not  give  more  than  an  occa- 
sional thought  to  these  remote  people,  while  those  who  want 
wealth  will  give  all  their  time  and  energy  to  the  pursuit,  and 
the  latter  will  control  our  policy. 

But,  granting  that  we  are  in  earnest,  our  whole  theory  of 
educating  and  civilizing  the  Filipinos  is  mistaken.  We  find  a 
people,  in  the  first  place,  largely  Christian.  Governor  Taft, 
before  the  Senate  Committee,  said :  "  The  Christian  persons 
amount  to  something  over  5,000,000,  perhaps  6,000,000. 
The  estimate  has  been  made  —  a  very  poor  estimate  —  that 
there  are  from  one  million  and  a  half  to  two  million  of  the 
non-Christian  tribes,  and  the  rest,  to  make,  up  eight  or  nine 
millions,  have  been  estimated  as  Moros.  It  is  the  Christians, 
certainly,  who  have  carried  on  the  insurrection." 

Senator  Lodge,  in  a  report  from  his  committee,  made  the 
proportion  of  Christians  larger, —  some  six  and  a  quarter  mill- 
ions out  of  seven  millions. 


20 

Questioned  as  to  the  education  of  the  Filipinos,  Governor 
Taft  told  the  committee  that  he  did  not  know  what  propor- 
tion of  the  people  could  read  and  write,  but  the  Spaniards 
thought  that  between  five  and  seven  per  cent  of  the  entire 
population  could  speak  Spanish.  "The  great  majority  do  not 
either  read  or  write  any  language  at  all." 

On  .the  other  hand,  an  article  sent  to  the  Senate  by  Sec- 
retary Root,  and  said  to  have  been  compiled  in  the  Division  of 
Insular  Affairs  from  standard  works  and  the  records  of  the 
Department,  supplemented  by  the  personal  experience  of  re- 
turning officers,  "  states  that  '  most  of  them  [the  Tagals],  both 
men  and  women,  can  read  and  write.'  " 

Governor  Taft  further  said,  "  Among  the  educated  classes 
there  is,  undoubtedly,  a  pride  in  their  own  people,  and  a  desire 
that  their  own  people  shall  progress.  ...  And  that  pride  in 
town  and  pride  in  province  and  pride  in  their  people,  as  a 
people,  and  their  love  of  education  and  their  desire  to  be  edu- 
cated, constitute  the  hope  of  success  of  what  we  are  doing 
there."  He  also  said  "that  for  three  hundred  years  they 
have  been  educated  in  the  Christian  religion." 

President  Schurman,  as  the  chairman  of  the  first  Philippine 
commission,  had  excellent  opportunities  to  study  this  people ; 
and  he  described  them  in  May  last  as  "the  6,500,000  civilized 
and  Christianized  Filipinos  of  Luzon  and  the  Visayas,"  and 
denounced  the  policy  which  would  retain  them,  on  the 
ground  of  advantage  to  the  United  States,  as  "  a  brutal  out- 
rage on  6,500,000  brother  men  and  fellow  Christians."  In 
the  same  address  he  said  that  "  nothing  could  more  unhappily 
describe  .  .  .  these  people  than  the  word  '  tribe,'  "  and  added, 
"  Let  us  drop  so  misleading  a  term,  and  speak  of  them  as 
communities,  and  let  us  call  the  aggregate  of  these  com- 
munities the  Philippine  nation." 

Senator  Hoar  is  a  student  of  history,  and  as  competent  as 
any  statesman,  living  or  dead,  to  judge  of  education  and  civil- 
ization. He  has  given  his  best  consideration  to  the  Philip- 
pine question,  and  he  said  that  "  the  Filipino  leaders  and  the 


21 

Filipino  people  have  shown  themselves  under  difficult  and 
trying  conditions  as  fit  for  freedom  and  self-government  as 
any  people  south  of  us  on  the  American  Continent  from  the 
Rio  Grande  to  Cape  Horn.  I  believe,  if  we  had  dealt  with 
them  as  it  seems  to  me  we  ought  to  have  dealt  with  them, 
they  would  have  established  their  nation  in  constitutional 
liberty  much  more  rapidly  than  has  been  done  by  any  Span- 
ish-speaking people.  .  .  .  They  had  an  excellent  constitution. 
They  had  a  congress  ;  they  had  courts  ;  they  had  a  president ; 
they  had  a  cabinet.  .  .  .  They  had  newspapers,  schools,  litera- 
ture, statesmen.  .  .  .  The  State  papers  which  these  people 
have  issued  show  a  high  degree  of  intelligence." 

Such  are  the  people  whom  we  are  undertaking  to  remake. 
We  find  them  all  speaking  a  language  of  their  own,  and 
we  begin  our  attempt  to  improve  them  by  trying  to  cure 
them  of  their  mother  tongue  and  make  them  learn  English. 
Language  is  not  education.  It  is  a  tool  by  which  men  get 
education.  Knowing  nothing  about  their  tool,  we  insist  that 
they  shall  abandon  it,  and  adopt  ours  as  the  first  step  toward 
learning;  and,  when  we  remember  how  few  of  the  teachers 
speak  any  language  but  English,  we  can  guess  how  slow  the 
progress  is.  Instead  of  reaching  them  through  their  own 
schools  and  their  own  teachers,  we  would  throw  away  their 
whole  system,  and  extemporize  one  of  our  own  at  their 
expense.  President  Schurman  has  characterized  the  attempt 
as  "a  crime  against  nature,"  but  it  is  typical  of  our  whole 
attitude.  Even  among  our  own  young  men  sprung  from 
the  same  race  we  have  learned  to  recognize  radical  differ- 
ences. We  no  longer  require  them  all  to  pursue  the  same 
studies,  but  we  let  them  elect  widely  divergent  courses.  Be- 
tween races  the  differences  are  as  ineffaceable  as  between 
the  oak  and  the  palm.  Civilization  for  each  race  means  the 
development  of  its  powers  along  the  lines  fixed  by  its  nature. 
The  Chinese  mandarin  is  an  absolutely  different  creature 
from  the  English  nobleman,  but  both  may  be  equally  civil- 
ized. We  in  our  ignorance  are  trying  to  make  Filipinos  into 
Americans  instead  of  trying  to  make  them  better  Filipinos. 


22 

The  experiment  has  been  tried  by  other  nations,  and  never 
with  success.  In  India  the  Mahommedans  make  many  con- 
verts where  the  Christian  missionaries  make  few.  Let  Mr. 
Townsend  tell  the  reason :  — 

"The  missionary  never  becomes  an  Indian  or  anything 
which  an  Indian  could  mistake  for  himself.  .  .  .  He  under- 
stands no  civilization  not  European ;  and  by  unwearied  ad- 
monition, by  governing,  by  teaching,  by  setting  up  all  manner 
of  useful  industries,  he  tries  to  bring  them  up  to  his  narrow 
ideal.  .  .  .  There  is  the  curse  of  the  whole  system,  whether  of 
missionary  work  or  of  education  in  India.  The  missionary, 
like  the  educationist,  cannot  resist  the  desire  to  make  his 
pupils  English,  to  teach  them  English  literature,  English 
science,  English  knowledge,  often  .  .  .  through  the  medium 
of  English  alone.  .  .  .  The  result  is  that  the  missionary 
becomes  an  excellent  pastor  or  an  efficient  schoolmaster,  and 
that  his  converts  .  .  .  become  in  exact  proportion  to  his  success 
a  hybrid  caste  not  quite  European,  not  quite  Indian,  with  the 
originality  killed  out  of  them,  with  self-reliance  weakened, 
with  all  mental  aspirations  wrenched  violently  in  a  direction 
which  is  not  their  own.  .  .  .  Natives  of  India,  when  they  are 
Christians,  will  be  and  ought  to  be  Asiatics  still, —  that  is,  as 
unlike  English  rectors  or  English  dissenting  ministers  as  it  is 
possible  for  men  of  the  same  creed  to  be ;  and  the  effort  to 
squeeze  them  into  these  moulds  not  only  wastes  power,  but 
destroys  the  vitality  of  the  original  material.  Mahommedan 
proselytism  succeeds  in  India  because  it  leaves  its  converts 
Asiatics  still.  Christian  proselytism  fails  in  India  because  it 
strives  to  make  of  its  converts  English  middle-class  men. 
That  is  the  truth  in  a  nutshell,  whether  we  choose  to  accept 
it  or  not  ?  "  * 

The  advocates  of  the  new  policy  tell  us  that  we  have  the 
experience  of  other  nations  to  guide  us ;  but  they  have  not 
taken  the  pains  to  see  what  that  experience  has  taught.  If  I 
may  revert  to  my  humble  metaphor,  it  has  taught  nothing 
more  clearly  than  that  you  cannot  turn  a  palm  into  an  oak, 
though  you  may  easily  spoil  the  palm  in  the  attempt. 

*  "  Asia  and  Europe,"  pp.  78,  79,  St. 


AMERICANS  AND  FILIPINOS  HAVE  NO  MUTUAL  SYMPATHY. 

The  third  condition  of  success  also  is  wanting.  Mutual 
understanding,  respect,  and  sympathy  do  not  exist,  and  never 
can  exist,  between  us  and  our  Asiatic  subjects. 

We  went  into  the  Spanish  War  as  a  people  with  profes- 
sions of  unselfish  zeal  for  humanity.  In  the  words  of  Presi- 
dent McKinley  to  the  ambassadors  of  the  various  European 
powers,  we  hoped  that  the  world  would  appreciate  our  "  dis- 
interested and  unselfish  endeavors  to  fulfil  a  duty  to  humanity 
by  ending  a  situation  the  indefinite  prolongation  of  which  has 
become  insufferable." 

The  Filipinos,  trusting  not  only  in  these  assurances,  but  in 
our  record  as  the  sincere  friends  of  the  oppressed  everywhere, 
hailed  us  as  deliverers.  The  proclamation  of  their  leaders, 
sent  to  Luzon  before  our  squadron,  showed  their  faith : 
"  Compatriots,  Divine  Providence  is  about  to  place  indepen- 
dence within  our  reach.  .  .  .  There  where  you  see  the  Amer- 
ican flag  flying,  assemble  in  numbers.  They  are  our  deliv- 
erers!"  And  on  May  24,  1898,  ere  the  echoes  of  Dewey's 
cannon  had  died  away,  Aguinaldo's  proclamation  gave  addi- 
tional assurance :  "  Filipinos,  the  great  nation,  North  Amer- 
ica, cradle  of  liberty,  and  friendly  on  that  account  to  the  lib- 
erty of  our  people,  .  .  .  has  come  to  manifest  a  protection 
which  is  disinterested  toward  us,  considering  us  with  suffi- 
cient civilization  to  govern  by  ourselves  this  our  unhappy 
land."  Must  there  not  always  be  a  profound  pathos  in  these 
words  to  any  one  who  reads  the  story  of  the  Filipino  tragedy  ? 

Their  expectations  were  encouraged,  after  General  Merritt's 
arrival,  by  his  proclamation  :  "  The  American  people  do  not 
come  here  to  make  war  upon  any  party.  It  proclaims  itself 
merely  the  champion,  the  liberator  of  people  oppressed  by 
bad  government  of  Spaniards." 

.  It  is  needless  to  recall  how  the  Filipinos  organized  their 
army,  and  before  any  American  soldiers  landed  in  Luzon  ex- 
pelled the  Spaniards  from  every  part  of  the  islands  except 
Manila,  capturing  many  and  holding  them  as  prisoners  with 


24 

other  Spaniards  delivered  to  them  by  Admiral  Dewey.  The 
story  of  their  part  in  the  campaign  against  Spain,  as  well  as 
any  discussion  of  their  relations  with  our  commanders,  is  for- 
eign to  my  immediate  purpose.  I  only  wish  to  make  it 
clear  that  at  the  outset  we  found  in  the  Filipinos  enthusiastic 
friends,  and  that  our  feeling  toward  them  was  not  the  result 
of  any  hostility  on  their  part. 

The  opinions  formed  by  our  representatives  were  favorable 
to  them.  Thus  Admiral  Dewey  on  June  27  cabled, — 

"  In  my  opinion,  these  people  are  far  superior  in  their 
intelligence  and  more  capable  of  self-government  than  the 
natives  of  Cuba  ;  and  I  am  familiar  with  both  races." 

General  Merritt,  on  his  arrival  in  Paris  in  October,  1898, 
was  reported  as  saying  :  — 

"  The  Filipinos  impress  me  very  favorably.  I  think  great 
injustice  has  been  done  the  native  population.  .  .  .  They  are 
more  capable  of  self-government  than,  I  think,  the  Cubans  are. 
They  are  considered  to  be  good  Catholics.  They  have 
lawyers,  doctors,  and  men  of  kindred  professions,  who  stand 
well  in  the  community,  and  bear  favorable  comparison  with 
those  of  other  countries.  They  are  dignified,  courteous,  and 
reserved." 

John  Barrett,  our  minister  to  Siam,  saw  the  government 
organized  by  the  Filipinos  in  operation,  and  described  it  as 
•"  a  government  which  has  practically  been  administering  the 
affairs  of  that  great  island  [Luzon]  since  the  American  pos- 
session of  Manila,  and  which  is  certainly  better  than  the  for- 
mer administration.  It  has  a  properly  formed  cabinet  and 
congress,  the  members  of  which  in  appearance  and  manner 
would  compare  favorably  with  Japanese  statesmen."  "The 
congressmen,  whose  sessions  I  repeatedly  attended,  conducted 
themselves  with  great  decorum,  and  showed  a  knowledge  of 
debate  and  parliamentary  law  that  would  not  compare  un- 
favorably with  the  Japanese  parliament.  The  executive  por- 
tion of  the  government  was  made  up  of  a  ministry  of  bright 
men,  who  seemed  to  understand  their  respective  positions," 
while  among  Aguinaldo's  advisers  were  "men  of  acknowl- 
edged ability  as  international  lawyers." 


25 

These  were  the  friendly  and  intelligent  people  with  whom 
our  government  undertook  to  establish  relations.  They  were 
at  home  in  the  country  where  they  and  their  fathers  had  lived 
for  centuries.  They  understood  their  situation  and  their 
•needs,  as  men  understand  subjects  which  they  have  spent 
their  lives  in  studying.  We  were  absolute  strangers,  rep- 
resentatives of  a  people  of  whom  very  few,  till  the  victory  at 
Manila,  knew  where  the  Philippine  Islands  were,  much  less 
anything  of  their  people.  Yet  no  sooner  had  we,  with  their 
active  co-operation,  defeated  the  common  enemy  than  we  pro- 
ceeded to  determine  their  future  without  even  consulting 
them.  No  sooner  had  our  soldiers  landed  than  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  contempt  for  men  of  a  race  and  color  different  from 
our  own,  intensified  in  the  American  by  the  long-established 
relation  of  master  and  slave  with  the  negro  and  of  conqueror 
with  the  Indian,  began  to  manifest  itself.  Privates  and 
officers  began  to  speak  of  their  allies  as  "  niggers  "  or  "  Ind- 
ians," and  volumes  of  evidence  would  not  make  their  feeling 
of  contempt  any  clearer  to  you  than  their  use  of  these  words. 
Let  me  add  the  testimony  of  an  intelligent  soldier  who  was 
on  the  spot :  — 

"  The  outrages  committed  against  his  [Aguinaldo's]  people 
in  Manila  were  as  varied  as  they  were  frequent.  I  have  seen 
drunken  soldiers  kick  Filipinos,  break  beer  bottles  over  their 
heads,  and  knock  them  down  with  their  fists.  I  have  seen 
stands  raided,  and  pedlers  '  kangarooed.'  Under  the  credit 
system  that  we  introduced,  bills  were  run  up  under  false 
names ;  and  the  wronged  native,  seeking  redress,  would  be 
sent  from  company  to  company,  only  to  learn  that  no  such 
person  was  to  be  found.  Every  bunco  game  known  to  our 
civilization  was  worked  upon  the  natives." 

This  statement  is  abundantly  confirmed  by  the  order  pub- 
lished by  General  Anderson  on  January  28,  1899,  from  which 
I  quote  :  — 

"  By  taking  advantage  of  the  ignorance  and  trust  of  numer- 
ous native  tradesmen  of  Manila,  many  enlisted  men  of  this 
command  have  seriously  impaired  the  reputation  of  the  citi- 


26 

zens  of  the  United  States  for  honesty.  These  unscrupulous 
men,  instead  of  insuring  the  rights  and  property  of  a  defence- 
less people  under  their  protection,  have  resorted  to  a  despicable 
species  of  robbery,  more  dangerous  than  looting,  because  less 
open." 

Let  me  quote  a  single  passage  from  many  found  in  offi- 
,cial  orders  before  hostilities  began.  These  words  are  found 
in  an  order  issued  July  5,  1898,  within  a  week  after  our  troops 
landed.  It  calls  attention  to  the  orders  regulating  the  con- 
duct of  "  troops  in  campaign,"  and  proceeds  :  — 

"These  provisions  relate  to  pillaging,  looting,  and  general 
misconduct  in  time  of  war.  They  relate  to  public  as  well  as 
private  property.  The  desecration  of  churches  is  particularly 
offensive,  and  will  be  rigorously  punished.  Unlawful  appro- 
priation is  theft,  in  war  as  well  as  in  peace  ;  and  the  oppression 
of  non-combatants  is  cowardly  and  mean.  Such  conduct 
changes  friends  to  enemies." 

If  such  was  the  conduct  of  privates,  what  was  the  course 
of  the  government  ?  The  Filipinos  sent  an  accomplished 
envoy  to  Washington ;  but  the  government,  though  willing 
to  make  a  treaty  with  the  sultan  of  the  Sulus,  would  not 
receive  this  ambassador  of  their  most  enlightened  Asiatic  de- 
pendants. The  Filipino  government  sent  representatives  to 
the  Peace  Congress  at  Paris,  but  the  doors  of  the  council- 
room  were  closed  to  them.  We  would  not  even  let  these 
inferior  people  tell  us  what  they  could  of  their  situation  and 
their  wishes. 

General  Merritt  thus  described  his  own  course  :  "  It  was 
impossible  to  recognize  the  insurgents.  I  made  it  a  point 
not  to  do  so,  as  I  knew  it  would  lead  to  complications.  I 
think  Admiral  Dewey  after  my  arrival  pursued  the  same 
course.  What  was  done  before  is  not  a  matter  upon  which  I 
can  comment.  I  purposely  did  not  recognize  Aguinaldo  nor 
his  troops,  nor  use  them  in  any  way.  Aguinaldo  did  not  ask 
to  see  me  until  ten  days  after  my  arrival.  After  that  I  was 
too  much  occupied  to  see 'him." 

It   is  certain  that  our  commanders  ordered  Aguinaldo  to 


27 

withdraw  his  forces,  to  keep  them  within  certain  lines,  and  in 
various  ways  asserted  "  supremacy  "  over  them  ;  and  this  atti- 
tude continued  till  hostilities  began.  It  is  certain  that  our 
administration  in  Washington  ignored  the  Filipinos  as  com- 
pletely as  if  they  had  not  existed  in  determining  what  should 
be  done  with  these  thousands  of  islands  and  millions  of 
people.  From  President  to  private  the  attitude  of  our  repre- 
sentatives was  consistent.  It  is  not  my  purpose  to  character- 
ize it  or  to  question  the  sincerity  of  the  men  who  adopted  it. 
I  would  only  point  out  how  absolutely  lacking  was  all  sym- 
pathy with  or  respect  for  the  Filipinos  on  our  part,  even  when 
they  were  our  friends  and  allies  and  before  there  had  been 
any  conflict  to  create  hatred  and  destroy  all  chance  of  mutual 
understanding. 

Their  struggle  for  freedom  has  not  brought  us  nearer  to- 
gether. President  Roosevelt,  during  the  campaign  of  1900, 
said  that  to  give  the  Filipinos  "  independence  now  would  be 
precisely  like  giving  independence  to  the  wildest  tribe  of 
Apaches  in  Arizona."  It  may  be  said  that  these  words  were 
hastily  uttered  in  a  political  speech ;  but,  none  the  less,  they 
went  all  over  this  country,  and  helped  to  form  the  opinions  of 
many  who  were  glad  to  believe  ill  of  the  people  with  whom 
their  country  was  at  war.  In  his  first  message  to  Congress, 
however,  is  a  very  careful  statement. 

"  What  has  taken  us  thirty  generations  to  achieve,  we  can- 
not expect  to  see  another  race  accomplish  out  of  hand,  es- 
pecially when  large  portions  of  that  race  start  very  far  behind 
the  point  which  our  ancestors  had  reached  even  thirty 
generations  ago."  It  is  a  bold  man  who  undertakes  to  say 
what  our  ancestors  were  doing  a  thousand  years  ago,  and  a 
much  bolder  who  says  that  large  portions  of  the  Filipino  race 
are  very  far  behind  the  point  they  had  then  reached. 

The  language,  however,  clearly  indicates  how  far  below 
the  plane  of  civilization  upon  which  the  President  places  him- 
self and  his  countrymen  are  the  depths  in  which  the  Filipinos 
dwell.  I  need  not  quote  the  Secretary  of  War,  who  attributes 
to  this  people  "  the  barbarous  cruelty  common  among  un- 


28 

civilized  races,"  and  describes  them  generally  as  treacherous 
foes ;  but  it  is  a  curious  illustration  of  our  attitude  toward 
them  that  Governor  Taft,  sent  out  to  govern  them,  never 
spoke  to  Aguinaldo  after  his  capture,  though  his  house  was 
very  near  the  latter's  place  of  confinement. 

Now  let  us  for  a  moment  see  how  the  same  people  are  de- 
scribed by  Captain  Hatch,  of  the  i8th  Infantry,  after  serv- 
ing for  more  than  a  year  in  the  islands  and  being  brought  in 
contact  with  thousands  of  the  people :  — 

He  says  :  "  The  Filipinos  are  Malays  softened  by  contact 
with  the  Spaniards.  .  .  .  The  Filipino  is  essentially  honest.  .  .  . 
The  Filipinos  are  a  deeply  religious  people.  .  .  .  They  are  a 
temperate,  sober  people.  During  a  year's  residence  among 
them  I  never  saw  a  drunken  Filipino.  They  are  a  cleanly 
people."  They  are  "  hospitable,  and  they  are  generous  in 
their  hospitality.  They  are  not  an  ignorant  people.  Their 
intelligence  and  educational  progress  are  apt  to  be  underesti- 
mated because  of  failure  to  understand  them.  Nearly  every 
adult  can  read  and  write  in  the  Tagalo  or  Viscayan  dialect ; 
while  the  natives  of  the  cities  and  villages,  in  addition,  can 
read  and  write  the  Spanish  language.  Moreover,  most  adults 
know  something  of  arithmetic,  geography,  and  history.  I  was 
surprised  one  day,  in  questioning  the  driver  of  my  quily,  an 
ordinary  poor  boy  of  eighteen,  to  find  that  he  had  studied 
geometry,  and  had  made  very  material  progress. 

"The  Filipinos  are  not  so  much  different  from  other 
people.  Their  customs,  habits,  hopes,  and  aspirations  are 
deep-seated.  Their  leaders  are  shrewd,  bright  men  of  much 
ability :  the  masses  are  earnest  in  their  loyalty." 

Let  me  add  the  testimony  of  an  American  Congressman, 
Mr.  Shafroth,  who  visited  the  islands  :  — 

"The  general  impression  exists  among  many  Americans 
that  the  Philippine  people  are  savages.  A  visit  to  the  islands 
will  certainly  dispel  any  such  delusion.  .  .  . 

"  When  I  find  behind  the  prescription  desks  of  the  numer- 
ous drug-stores  of  the  islands,  even  when  kept  by  Americans 
and  Englishmen,  Filipinos  compounding  medicines  taken  from 


29 

bottles  labelled  in  Latin ;  when  I  see  behind  the  counter  of 
banks  having  large  capital  natives  acting  as  book-keepers  and 
as  receiving  and  paying  tellers;  when  I  find  them  as  mer- 
chants and  clerks  in  almost  all  lines  of  business,  as  telegraph 
operators  and  ticket  agents,  conductors  and  engineers  upon 
railroads,  and  as  musicians  rendering  upon  almost  all  instru- 
ments high-class  music ;  when  I  am  told  that  they  alone 
make  the  observations  and  intricate  calculations  at  the  Manila 
observatory,  and  that  prior  to  the  insurrection  there  were 
2,100  schools  in  the  islands  and  5,000  students  in  attendance 
at  the  Manila  university ;  when  I  find  the  better  class  living 
in  good,  substantial,  and  sometimes  elegant  houses,  and  many 
of  them  pursuing  professional  occupations, — rl  cannot  but 
conclude  that  it  is  a  vile  slander  to  compare  these  people  to 
the  Apaches  or  the  American  Indians.  .  .  . 

"  The  best  evidence  of  the  ability  of  the  Philippine  people 
to  govern  themselves  is  that  they  possess  a  large  intelligent 
class,  thoroughly  identified  in  interest  with  the  islands,  and 
capable  of  administering  good  government.  The  civil  com- 
mission has  recognized  this  ability  by  recently  adding  three 
native  members  to  that  governing  body ;  by  appointing  three 
Filipino  judges  of  the  supreme  court;  by  selecting  about 
half  of  the  judges  of  the  first  instance  and  nearly  all  the  gov- 
ernors of  the  provinces  from  that  race  ;  and  by  appointing  a 
solicitor-general  and  many  other  officers  from  the  natives. 
Are  these  officials  not  in  the  governing  business,  and  do  they 
not  perform  their  work  as  well  as  the  Americans  ?  Is  it 
possible  that  they  are  capable  of  governing  because  they  were 
appointed  by  the  representatives  of  a  distant  nation  ?  Would 
they  lose  that  ability  if  elected  or  chosen  by  properly  consti- 
tuted authority  of  their  own  ?  In  the  latter  event  they  would 
make  far  better  officers,  because  they  would  consult  only  the 
interest  of  their  own  people  instead  of  that  of  a  nation  7,000 
miles  away." 

Between  the  President's  conception  of  the  people  whom  he 
rules  and  this  picture  painted  by  American  eye-witnesses 
there  is  a  great  gulf.  Both  sides  may  be  honest :  both  can- 


30 

not  be  right.  If  the  eye-witnesses  happen  to  be  right,  what, 
think  you,  is  the  chance  of  our  successfully  governing  such  a 
people  as  they  describe  upon  the  theory  of  that  people's 
nature  and  condition  which  the  President  entertains  ?  Entire 
ignorance  or  radical  misconception  of  his  subjects  will  insure 
conspicuous  failure  on  the  part  of  the  ruler,  whether  native 
or  foreign. 

THEY  HAVE  NO  CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS. 

Let  us  now  pass  to  two  other  conditions  of  good  govern- 
ment which  do  not  exist  in  the  Philippine  Islands  or  any  of  our 
insular  dependencies.  The  first  is  a  constitutional  restraint  on 
arbitrary  power.  The  essence  of  constitutional  liberty  is  the 
protection  of  the  individual  man  against  his  government. 
Against  a  foreign  oppressor,  men  rely  on  armies  and  navies ; 
but  against  domestic  tyranny  they  raise  the  shield  of  a  consti- 
tution. We  are  apt  to  say  that  constitutional  liberty  is  an 
Anglo-Saxon  invention.  Let  us  grant  this,  and  then  realize 
that  its  safeguards  were  devised  to  protect  Anglo-Saxons 
against  Anglo-Saxons.  Charles  I.  was  as  good  an  Englishman 
as  Cromwell.  James  II.  was  a  better  Englishman  than 
William  III.  The  English  Constitution  has  grown  up  through 
the  efforts  of  English  subjects  to  restrain  English  kings. 
American  constitutions  have  been  framed  to  prevent  Ameri- 
can presidents,  governors,  judges,  and  legislatures  from  op- 
pressing American  citizens.  Great  as  is  our  confidence  in 
each  other,  there  is  no  American  living  who  would  surrender 
his  constitutional  rights,  or  be  content  that  his  liberty  or  his 
property  should  be  at  the  mercy  of  any  other  Americans. 
What  laborer  would  feel  safe  if  his  hours  'and  wages  could  be 
fixed  by  a  legislature  controlled  by  capital  ?  What  capitalist 
would  invest  in  a  state  where  nothing  restrained  a  legislature 
of  laborers  from  destroying  his  investment  ? 

If  the  citizen  of  Massachusetts  needs  protection  against  his 
own  fellow-citizens,  if  the  American  people  dare  not  give  their 
President  and  their  Congress  power  unfettered  by  a  constitu- 
tion, is  it  not  too  clear  for  argument  that  the  shield  of  a  con- 


stitution  is  far  more  needed  by  the  Filipinos  ?  The  Congress 
which  controls  their  government  is  composed  of  men  who 
do  not  know  them,  and  who  meet  thousands  of  miles  from 
their  country.  Their  governors,  who  may  be  selected  for  other 
reasons  than  honesty  or  capacity,  do  not  stay  long  enough 
to  really  know  them.  Both  Congress  and  governors  regard 
them  as  their  inferiors,  and  have  nothing  to  fear  from  their 
disapproval,  since  they  have  neither  vote  nor  representative. 
If  Americans  cannot  be  trusted  with  arbitrary  power  over 
us  at  home,  they  cannot  be  trusted  with  it  out  of  sight  and 
over  foreigners. 

THERE  is  NO  EFFECTIVE  PUBLIC  OPINION. 

But  a  still  more  important  safeguard  is  lacking.  I  mean 
public  opinion.  This  is  the  great  force  against  which  laws 
and  even  constitutions  are  ineffectual,  and  which  more  than 
either  restrains  the  rulers  of  every  modern  State.  Enlight- 
ened public  opinion  exists  only  where  the  public  is  informed 
and  where  it  is  interested.  Neither  knowledge  nor  interest 
sufficient  to  create  an  effective  public  opinion  can  be  relied 
upon  to  control  our  government  in  the  Philippines. 

Dealing  first  with  knowledge,  what  has  been  our  experience 
in  the  past  ? 

In  considering  this,  we  must  not  forget  that  the  annexation 
of  the  Philippines,  marking  as  it  did  an  entirely  new  depart- 
ure from  our  previous  policy,  was  a  subject  in  which  the 
American  people  naturally  took  a  deep  interest.  It  had 
never  been  an  issue  in  any  campaign,  and  it  was  quite  uncer- 
tain how  the  people  would  regard  it.  It  was  known  that 
leaders  like  Harrison,  Reed,  Hoar,  Boutwell,  and  many  others 
opposed  it.  It  was  certainly  probable  that  the  voters  would 
be  less  likely  to  favor  it,  if  it  involved  a  war  of  conquest 
over  a  civilized  people,  than  if  it  meant  merely  the  repres- 
sion of  a  few  bandits  who  were  endeavoring  to  thwart  our 
benevolent  purposes  from  motives  of  personal  ambition. 

A  presidential  campaign  was  impending,  and  it  was  impos- 


32 

sible  for  men  who  were  candidates  for  re-election  not  to  be 
anxious  about  the  effect  on  the  popular  mind  of  news  from 
the  Philippines.  There  was  certainly  a  strong  motive  on  the 
part  of  both  military  and  civil  authorities  to  make  the  best 
case  for  themselves  possible  ;  and  it  must  be  remembered  that 
this  motive  will  always  operate,  so  long  as  our  government 
lasts,  no  matter  who  undertakes  to  govern  the  Philippines. 

Almost  at  the  outset  of  the  military  occupation  a  censorship 
was  established  over  the  despatches  from  Manila.  In  so  far  as 
this  was  intended  to  prevent  information  from  reaching  the 
other  side,  it  was  but  one  feature  of  military  operations ;  but 
this  does  not  seem  to  have  been  its  purpose.  All  the  staff 
correspondents  of  American  newspapers  in  Manila,  eleven  in 
number,  on  July  17,  1899,  cabled  to  the  United  States  a 
joint  protest,  in  which  they  stated  that,  "owing  to  official 
despatches  from  Manila  made  public  in  Washington,  the 
people  of  the  United  States  have  not  received  a  correct  im- 
pression of  the  situation  in  the  Philippines.  .  .  .  The  censor- 
ship has  compelled  us  to  participate  in  this  misrepresentation 
by  excising  or  altering  uncontroverted  statements  of  facts  on 
the  plea,  as  General  Otis  stated,  that  '  they  would  alarm  the 
people  at  home'  or  'have  the  people  of  the  United  States  by 
the  ears.'  "  Two  of  the  signers  in  letters  subsequently  pub- 
lished quoted  the  censor  as  saying,  "  My  instructions  are  to 
let  nothing  go  that  will  hurt  the  McKinley  administration." 

These  revelations  caused  a  burst  of  public  indignation,  which 
was  met  on  October  9  by  a  statement  from  the  adjutant 
general's  office  that  the  censorship  had  been  abolished. 
After  the  elections  this  was  shown  to  be  false  by  the  censor 
himself,  who  on  December  2  declared  that  the  censorship 
had  never  been  abolished ;  and  we  have  every  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  it  continues  still. 

The  statement  of  the  correspondents,  never  contradicted, 
shows  that  at  a  very  critical  period  in  our  history  the  truth 
was  kept  systematically  from  the  American  people  lest 
public  opinion  should  be  informed  and  aroused  against  the 
persons  for  the  time  in  power.  Their  fortunes,  not  the  future 


33 

of  the  country,  controlled  their  action.;  and,  if  the  policy 
which  has  been  pursued  proves  disastrous  to  this  country, 
let  us  not  forget  the  methods  by  which  the  public  was  lulled 
into  acquiescence.  It  is  one  illustration  of  the  way  in  which 
we  may  lose  our  rights, —  our  right  to  know  the  truth  and 
decide  upon  our  own  policy, —  while  we  think  that  only  the 
rights  of  another  people  are  at  stake. 

Let  me  further  illustrate  my  proposition  by  a  quotation 
from  President  McKinley's  letter  of  acceptance  :  — 

"  The  American  people  are  asked  by  our  opponents  to  yield 
the  sovereignty  of  the  United  States  in  the  Philippines  to  a 
small  fraction  of  the  population,  a  single  tribe  out  of  eighty  or 
more  inhabiting  the  archipelago.  We  are  asked  to  transfer 
our  sovereignty  to  a  small  minority  in  the  islands  without 
consulting  the  majority,  and  to  abandon  the  largest  portion  of 
the  population,  which  has  been  loyal  to  us,  to  the  cruelties  of 
the  guerilla  insurgent  bands." 

Yet  the  President's  chosen  representative,  Mr.  Schurman, 
knew  and  about  the  same  time  publicly  staled  that,  while  he 
had  gone  to  the  Philippines  with  the  theory  that  the  people 
were  divided  into  tribes,  he  discovered  that,  while  Spain  three 
hundred  years  ago  found  "tribal  Indians  governed  by  their 
chieftains,  .  .  .  these  hereditary  chieftains  had  everywhere  dis- 
appeared. .  .  .  Spanish  dominion  in  the  course  of  three  cen- 
turies made  itself  completely  effective  among  the  6,500,000 
of  Filipinos,  .  .  .  the  vast  majority  of  the  people  of  the  Philip- 
pine Islands."  And  in  July  of  the  present  year  at  West 
Point  Secretary  Root  said  of  the  army,  "  In  the  Philippines 
it  has  put  down  an  insurrection  of  7,000,000  people." 

How  completely  are  these  last  statements  at  variance  with 
President  McKinley's  assumption  I  The  American  people 
believed  President  McKinley,  yet  Secretary  Root's  statement 
is  true. 

I  will  not  dwell  upon  reports  as  to  the  probable  length 
of  the  contest,  the  weakness  of  the  Filipinos,  or  the  humanity 
of  our  methods,  which  have  been  proved  completely  false  by 
the  facts  now  admitted,  but  which  did  their  duty  as  soporifics. 


34 

to  the  American  conscience  at  critical  moments.  Let  me 
turn  at  once  to  very  recent  statements  as  to  the  conditions 
which  now  prevail. 

The  President  on  November  19,  at  Memphis,  used  the  fol- 
lowing language :  — 

"  Again,  a  disease  like  the  cattle  plague  may  cause  in  some 
given  provinces  such  want  that  a  part  of  the  inhabitants  re- 
vert to  their  ancient  habit  of  brigandage.  But  the  islands 
have  never  been  as  orderly,  as  peaceful,  or  as  prosperous  as 
now." 

Yet,  in  his  annual  report,  Secretary  Root  says  that  "  the 
ills  which  have  recently  befallen  the  people  of  the  islands  call 
for  active  and  immediate  measures  of  relief.  The  people  of 
a  country  just  emerging  from  nearly  six  years  of  devastating 
warfare,  during  which  productive  industry  was  interrupted, 
vast  amounts  of  property  were  destroyed,  the  bonds  of 
social  order  were  broken,  habits  of  peaceful  industry  were 
lost,  and  at  the  close  of  which  a  great  residuum  of  disorderly 
men  were  left  leading  a  life  of  brigandage  and  robbery,  had  a 
sufficiently  difficult  task  before  them  to  restore  order  and 
prosperity.  In  addition  to  this,  however,  the  people  of  the 
Philippine  Islands  have  within  the  past  year  been  visited  by 
great  misfortunes.  The  rinderpest  has  destroyed  about  ninety 
per  cent,  of  all  their  carabaos,  leaving  them  without  draft 
animals  to  till  their  land  and  aid  in  the  ordinary  work."  The 
"surra  "  has  killed  and  is  killing  their  horses.  "  The  rice  crop 
has  been  reduced  to  25  per  cent,  of  the  ordinary  crop." 
A  plague  of  locusts  "  has  destroyed  much  of  the  remaining 
25  per  cent.  .  .  .  Cholera  has  raged,  and  is  still  raging, 
throughout  the  islands  "  ;  and  it  is  estimated  that  this  disease 
"will  claim  not  less  than  100,000  victims." 

The  fall  in  the  price  of  silver  has  "  borne  heavily  on  the 
commercial  interests  and  on  the  wage-earners."  "The  com- 
mission has  been  obliged  to  go  out  of  the  islands  and  use  in- 
sular funds  to  buy  over  40,000,000  pounds  of  rice  to  save  the 
people  from  perishing  by  famine,"  while  it  "has  lost  over 
$1,000,000  in  gold  by  the  decline  in  silver.  .  .  .  Agriculture 


35 

is  prostrated,  commerce  is  hampered  and  discouraged."  Well 
did  Mr.  Burritt  Smith  say,  "  The  President's  prosperity  seems 
composed  in  nearly  equal  parts  of  pestilence  and  famine." 
But,  seriously,  what  must  we  think  when,  with  these  conditions 
existing,  the  President  can  aver  that  the  islands  were  never 
"  as  peaceful  and  prosperous  as  now  "  ?  The  bare  comparison 
of  the  statement  with  the  facts  makes  argument  superfluous. 

Why  do  I  dwell  on  these  things  ?  Not  to  impugn  the  hon- 
esty of  the  President,  whose  nature  is  combative,  not  judicial, 
but  because  I  would  make  you  realize  the  vital  difference  be- 
tween the  government  of  a  people  by  themselves  and  a  gov- 
ernment of  the  same  people  by  another  nation.  A  people 
who  choose  their  own  rulers  cannot  long  be  deceived  as  to 
their  own  conditions.  They  do  not  take  the  statements  of 
their  rulers  as  necessarily  true.  For  example,  if  our  agriculture 
were  prostrate,  our  commerce  discouraged,  our  currency  dis- 
ordered, our  animals  dying  of  one  disease,  our  fellow-citizens  of 
another,  if  famine  stared  us  in  the  face,  no  President  would 
dare  to  tell  us  that  we  were  prosperous.  No  official  could 
persuade  us  that  coal  is  now  abundant  and  cheap  in  this 
country.  President  Roosevelt  would  waste  his  words  if  he 
told  the  Filipinos  that  they  were  never  so  happy  and  pros- 
perous as  now.  The  graves  of  the  dead,  the  anguish  of 
the  living,  the  desolated  fields,  the  starving  people,  rinder- 
pest and  cholera,  would  answer  him.  This  suffering  people 
could  not  be  deceived ;  but  we,  a  foreign  people,  thousands  of 
miles  away,  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  the  facts.  We 
must  rely  on  evidence,  and  we  believe  our  countrymen  against 
any  Filipino  testimony.  Hence  we  may  be  deceived,  as  it  is 
now  admitted  that  we  have  been  deceived  at  every  stage  of 
this  enterprise. 

This  is  no  new  thing  in  human  history.  You  yourselves 
can  well  recall  the  days  just  after  the  war,  when  you  could  not 
make  us  Northern  men  believe  that  evils  existed  here  which 
you  knew  and  felt.  Your  testimony  was  weighed  against 
that  of  men  sent  here  to  govern  you.  We  said  that  it  was 
the  testimony  of  rebels  against  loyal  men,  of  men  smarting 


36 

from  defeat  and  bitterly  hostile  against  the  agents  of  a  hated 
government ;  and  we  would  not  credit  your  words.  Yet  you 
were  our  brothers :  you  spoke  our  language ;  your  habits  of 
thought,  your  traditions,  your  blood,  were  ours.  We  had  a 
common  history.  We  were  connected  by  a  thousand  ties  of 
kindred  and  friendship  and  business.  Yet  even  you  found 
that  your  just  complaints  fell  on  deaf  ears.  This  has  been 
the  experience  of  men  from  the  dawn  of  history. 

Apply  these  considerations  to  our  case.  The  public  opinion 
of  the  Filipinos  is  accurately  informed  as  to  the  facts,  but  it 
is  powerless.  The  Filipino  has  neither  vote  nor  voice.  The 
public  opinion  of  Americans  is  all-powerful ;  but  it  is  igno- 
rant, and  it  must  remain  so,  for  it  will  receive  no  evidence 
from.  Filipinos  against  Americans ;  and  the  testimony  of 
Americans  will  always  be  in  their  own  favor. 

Let  me  give  you  another  instance  of  the  difference  between 
the  testimony  of  the  governors  and  that  of  the  people,  taken 
from  Porto  Rico.'  I  have  quoted  the  President's  words  which 
give  the  official  view  of  its  condition.  Against  it  let  me 
place  this  statement  made  very  recently  by  a  nephew  of  the 
chief  justice  of  Porto  Rico,  now  a  Senior  in  the  Cornell  Law 
School,  in  an  address  to  his  class :  — 

' '  Instead  of  autonomy,  which  had  been  conceded  to  us  by 
Spain,  we  now  have  a  government  which  gives  the  governor 
more  despotic  powers  than  any  Spanish  military  governor  ever 
had ;  and  he  exercises  them  to  the  detriment  of  the  people. 
In  order  that  his  will  may  be  done  and  that  his  power  may  be 
absolute,  Governor  Hunt  supports  the  party  of  the  minority, 
composed  of  American  adventurers  and  native  renegades, 
who  have  no  regard  for  the  welfare  of  the  country  and  are 
ready  to  applaud  as  long  as  they  enjoy  official  protection. 
The  election  of  November  last  was  the  greatest  political 
crime  of  the  century.  All  means  were  used  from  fraud  to 
murder  to.  give  the  victory  to  the  governmental  party,  which 
won,  although  far  in  the  minority.  It  fills  my  heart  with 
anger  and  indignation  when  I  think  of  the  number  of  crimes 
which  have  been  committed  to  carry  such  elections.  But  the 


37 

murderers  will  remain  unpunished  because  the  ministers  in 
the  temple  of  justice  are  politicians.  We  have  gone  back  to 
those  dark  days  of  the  Spanish  administration  of  1887,  when 
our  mothers  and  sisters  were  in  constant  fear  that  their  sons 
and  brothers  might  be  arrested  by  the  Spanish  soldiers,  to  be 
thrown  into  a  dungeon  and  suffer  torture  for  the  crime  of 
being  patriots.  To-day,  under  the  present  government,  our 
mothers  and  sisters  have  the  same  fear  that  they  may  be 
brought  back  murdered  because  they  do  not  belong  to  the 
party  protected  by  the  government.  Life  for  honest  people 
is  becoming  impossible  in  Porto  Rico,  because  they  see  that 
the  government  protects  the  criminal  and  punishes  the  law- 
abiding  citizen.  The  government  there  has  tainted  the  flag 
with  dishonor.  I  am  sure  that,  if  the  true  facts  were  known, 
the  honest-hearted  Americans  would  be  filled  with  indigna- 
tion. But  only  the  official  reports  reach  American  ears,  and 
in  th'em  Porto  Rico  is  represented  as  a  happy  and  prosperous 
country.  These  reports  are  basely  false.  Porto  Rico  is 
going  through  a  great  crisis.  The  island  is  prostrated.  I 
make  this  appeal  to  you  as  true  American  citizens,  because  I 
believe  that  my  country  is  entitled  to  have  a  government 
founded  upon  those  principles  that  have  made  this  nation  the 
greatest,  the  freest,  and  the  noblest  among  the  nations  of  the 
world,  and  because  I  believe  we  are  at  least  entitled  as  civil- 
ized and  Christian  people  to  have  our  national  rights  guaran- 
teed by  the  government  to  which  we  owe  our  allegiance.  In 
Heaven's  name,  we  want,  instead  of  profligacy,  honesty;  in- 
stead of  extravagance,  economy ;  instead  of  rioting,  peace. 

Where  between  the  American  and  the  Porto  Rican  lies  the 
truth  ? 

THE  CONSPIRACY  OF  SILENCE. 

Even  if  we  wished  to  know  the  facts,  how  could  we  learn 
them  ?  The  party  in  power  still  glories  in  its  policy  of  con- 
quest. The  alliance  between  the  wealth  of  the  country  and 
that  party  is  very  close.  The  press  is  largely  controlled  in 
the  joint  interest,  by  direct  ownership,  advertising  patronage, 


38 

and  political  preferment.  We  get  no  news  from  the  Philip- 
pine Islands  save  an  occasional  short  despatch  or  an  official 
statement  from  the  War  Department.  The  meetings  and 
arguments  of  those  who  oppose  the  administration  are  ig- 
nored, or,  as  the  phrase  goes,  "crowded  out  by  press  of 
other  matter,"  while  wide  circulation  is  given  to  that  which 
helps  it.  An  investigation  is  ordered  in  the  Senate,  but 
it  is  placed  in  charge  of  a  committee  whose  chairman  has 
been  the  most  ardent  supporter  of  the  Philippine  policy. 
With  a  long  list  of  important  witnesses  still  uncalled,  the  in- 
vestigation is  stopped :  the  officials  whose  acts  are  under 
investigation  have  been  heard,  but  there  is  no  time  to  hear 
the  other  side.  The  Filipinos  themselves  are  denied  a  hear- 
ing ;  though,  if  they  are  the  loyal,  peaceful,  prosperous,  free 
people  whom  the  President  describes,  it  is  passing  strange  that 
they  should  be  denied  the  opportunity  to  tell  this  country 
how  loyal,  free,  and  happy  they  are.  Such  testimony  from 
representative  Filipinos,  such  evidence  of  their  consent  to  our 
sway,  would  be  a  powerful  weapon  against  the  anti-imperial- 
ists and  would  make  the  consciences  of  Americans  far 
easier.  Why  are  they  not  called  ?  I  challenge  the  admin- 
istration—  I  challenge  Senator  Lodge  to  prove  their  asser- 
tions by  evidence  within  their  control  before  a  tribunal 
already  organized,  and  thus  confound  their  opponents.  This 
challenge  will  never  be  accepted.  No  Filipino,  save  an  occa- 
sional renegade  like  Buencamino,  will  ever  be  called.  The 
conspiracy  of  silence,  which  is  recognized  in  Europe  as  well 
as  here,  will  continue.  Silence,  evasion,  or  bold  assertion,  is 
safer  than  the  truth.  There  is  no  important  issue  in  the 
history  of  our  country  on  which  the  press  has  been  so  still 
as  upon  this,  or  where  the  facts  have  been  so  completely 
disguised. 

POPULAR  INDIFFERENCE. 

But  there  is  another  greater  difficulty ;  and  that  is  the  in- 
difference of  the  governing  nation  to  the  sufferings  of  distant 
foreign  subjects.  Many  say  that  the  American  people  cannot 


39 

be  induced  to  take  an  interest  in  the  Philippine  question. 
They  are  content  to  let  their  government  deal  with  it. 
Where  their  pockets  or  their  comfort  are  affected,  they  take 
a  deep  interest  and  criticise  their  public  officials  freely.  But 
they  are  so  busy  with  their  own  affairs,  getting  their  own  liv- 
ings, making  and  spending  their  own  dollars,  that  they  have 
no  time  for  more  than  a  languid  and  occasional  interest  in 
the  affairs  of  others. 

It  is  because  the  American  people  do  not  know  and  do  not 
really  care  what  is  done  in  the  Philippines  that  they  are  unfit 
to  govern  them.  Say  what  you  will  of  their  intelligence,  their 
energy,  their  high  purpose,  their  fitness  to  govern,  what 
avail  all  these,  if  they  will  not  govern, —  if  their  intelligence> 
their  energy,  their  high  purpose,  are  not  applied  to  the  task  ? 

If  the  suffering  which  exists  now  in  Luzon  existed  in  Mas- 
sachusetts, you  citizens  of  South  Carolina  would  be  consider- 
ing earnestly  how  to  help  us,  as  during  the  Revolution  you 
sent  food  and  money  to  the  suffering  people  of  Boston. 
If  Louisiana  was  devastated  by  cholera,  the  whole  country 
would  be  sending  aid.  If  the  agriculture  of  a  single  West- 
ern State  was  prostrate,  every  other  would  be  doing  it& 
best  to  relieve  it.  Martinque  was  near;  and  we  sent  ship- 
loads of  provisions  a  year  ago,  though  her  calamities  were 
in  no  part  of  our  causing.  Has  the  famine  and  pesti- 
lence in  the  Philippines  drawn  a  dollar  from  one  American 
pocket  or  stirred  one  American  community  to  active  effort 
or  even  to  an  expression  of  sympathy  ?  These  people  are 
prostrate  at  our  feet,  and  many  of  their  ills  are  directly  caused 
by  us.  They  are  to-day  members  in  some  sense  of  our  politi- 
cal community,  our  countrymen-in-law ;  yet  they  are  as  alien 
to  us,  as  remote  from  our  sympathies,  as  they  were  before 
Dewey  entered  the  Bay  of  Manila.  We  wish  we  had  not  got 
them ;  we  dislike  to  hear  about  them ;  we  like  to  believe 
that  we  have  done  all  that  a  great  nation  should ;  but  our 
consciences  are  uneasy,  and,  to  avoid  the  prick,  we  turn  to- 
our  own  affairs.  This  attitude  is  the  confession  of  America 
that  it  cannot  govern  the  Philippine  Islands.  There  is  no 
public  opinion  to  restrain  their  rulers. 


40 

Our  examination  thus  far  proves  that,  of  the  conditions 
which  we  have  deemed  essential  to  the  success  of  any  human 
government,  not  one  is  present.  It  is  not  our  purpose  to  use 
our  power  solely  for  the  good  of  the  Filipinos,  but  first,  as 
Senator  Lodge  says,  to  benefit  ourselves.  The  development 
which  we  propose  is  not  the  development  of  the  Filipino  race, 
but  the  development  of  their  material  resources  for  our 
own  benefit.  We  have  no  real  knowledge  of  or  sympathy 
with  the  Filipino  people.  We  dislike  and  distrust  them  as 
inferiors  with  whom  we  do  not  care  to  associate.  We  pro- 
pose to  give  them  such  measure  of  free  government  as  we 
think  them  qualified  to  use,  or,  in  briefer  phrase,  to  govern 
them  as  we  see  fit,  exercising  a  power  unfettered  by  any  con- 
stitution and  unrestrained  by  any  informed  and  interested 
public  opinion. 

How  can  we  hope  that  a  system  under  which  no  American 
would  be  safe  in  the  hands  of  Americans,  a  system  which 
throws  aside  all  the  restraints  which  civilized  men  find  it 
necessary  to  impose  upon  the  governments  which  they  frame 
for  themselves,  will  insure  good  government  to  these  distant 
Asiatics,  whose  future  we  have  undertaken  to  control  against 
their  will  ?  We  have  been  urged  not  to  adopt  the  policy  of 
"scuttle."  There  is  no  meaner  policy  of  "scuttle"  than 
that  which  retains  the  power  and  shirks  the  responsibility ; 
which  "scuttles"  from  our  ideals  and  our  principles,  which 
forces  itself  into  a  trust  and  ignores  its  obligations.  It  is 
against  such  a  "scuttle  "  that  the  busy  and  indifferent  people 
of  this  country  should  be  warned. 

OUR  POLICY  DOES  NOT  LEAD  TO  INDEPENDENCE. 

But  I  am  told  that  we  are  only  preparing  the  Filipinos  for 
independence.  We  are  educating  them ;  and,  when  their 
education  is  complete,  we  shall  let  them  go.  Our  practical 
policy  is  calculated  to  prevent  this.  If  we  offer  American 
capital  the  opportunity  to  find  investment  in  these  islands,  if 
American  companies  acquire  mines,  forests,  great  tracts  of 


41 

arable  land,  and  public  franchises,  we  establish  the  strongest 
possible  barrier  against  Filipino  independence.  Our  citizens 
will  say  to  the  government :  "  You  invited  us  into  the  islands. 
You  told  us  that  our  capital  was  needed,  and  we  accepted 
your  invitation.  If  now  you  surrender  the  control  of  the  gov- 
ernment to  the  Filipinos,  what  security  have  we  that  our 
property  will  be  safe  ?  You  are  bound  to  stay  here  in  order 
to  protect  us."  The  American  owners  of  investments  in  the 
Philippines  will,  perhaps,  be  rich  and  powerful.  They  will 
certainly  be  here  and  clamorously  insistent,  while  the  Fili- 
pinos will  be  alien  and  remote. 

How  a  small  interest  can  override  considerations  of  national 
honor  is  shown  by  the  success  of  the  beet-sugar  makers  in 
controlling  our  policy  with 'Cuba.  There  is  nothing  clearer 
in  modern  politics  than  the  alliance  between  financial  and 
political  powers.  Everywhere  capital  seeks  to  control  the 
government  in  its  own  interest.  If  invested  in  a  weak  for- 
eign state,  its  owners  seek  to  own  the  government  of  that 
state,  and,  failing,  try  to  make  their  own  government  inter- 
fere and  control  it.  This  was  the  origin  of  the  Boer  War ; 
and  like  influences  have  inspired  English,  French,  and  German 
aggression  in  Asia  and  Africa.  The  policy  of  Governor  Taft 
and  the  Philippine  statute  of  last  summer  are  fatal  to  the  in- 
dependence of  the  Philippines.  Every  dollar  that  we  plant 
there  is  an  argument  against  freedom. 

Such  are  some  of  the  reasons  for  a  confident  belief  that  our 
government  of  the  Philippine  Islands  cannot  be  good  and  can- 
not lead  to  their  elevation  and  ultimate  independence. 

THE  EXPERIENCE  OF  OTHER  NATIONS. 

But  men  say  that  human  experience  proves  the  contrary. 
Other  nations  have  succeeded  :  why  should  not  we  ? 

What  other  nations  have  succeeded  ?  Not  the  Greeks, 
though  Alexander,  the  greatest  soldier  that  the  world  has 
known,  pushed  his  conquests  in  Asia  almost  to  the  Ganges, 
and  in  Africa  to  the  desert,  and  died  supreme  in  three  con- 


42 

tinents.  His  empire  crumbled  at  his  death,  and  during  the 
centuries  since  he  died  Macedonia  has  been  but  a  name. 

Not  the  Romans.  Their  foreign  conquests  began  when  Scipio 
triumphed  at  Zama,  and  during  the  next  century  they  ex- 
tended their  dominions  far  and  wide,  but  their  provinces  be- 
came the  scenes  of  the  most  intolerable  oppression  and  extor- 
tion practised  by  successive  Roman  governors.  At  the  end  of 
a  century  Mommsen  says  that  "  the  governor  of  a  province 
seemed  to  administer  it  no  longer  for  the  senate,  but  for  the 
order  of  capitalists  and  merchants."  It  had  become  a  quarrel 
between  Romans  over  the  division  of  spoil,  with  no  thought 
by  either  for  the  men  who  were  despoiled.  Lucullus  and 
Galba  harried  Spain  and  Portugal ;  and  of  their  acts  the  same 
historian  says,  "War  has  hardly  ever  been  waged  with  so 
much  perfidy,  cruelty,  and  avarice  as  by  these  two  generals  -r 
yet  by  means  of  their  criminally  acquired  treasures  the  one 
escaped  condemnation ;  and  the  other  escaped  even  impeach- 
ment." Their  cases  were  typical. 

The  colonies  of  Rome  were  the  nurseries  in  which  were 
trained  the  armies  which  under  Marius,  Sulla,  and  Caesar  over- 
threw the  Roman  Republic.  The  treasures  wrung  from  the 
provinces,  and  the  example  of  successful  robbers  like  Lucul- 
lus, changed  the  standards  and  ideals  of  Rome  and  corrupted 
the  whole  people,  so  that  they  had  not  virtue  enough  to  resist 
these  generals.  In  barely  a  hundred  years  after  Zama  the 
Roman  Republic  had  ceased  to  exist.  Surely,  neither  Roman 
nor  provincial  gained  by  the  colonial  policy  of  Rome. 

Take  even  our  own  ancestors,  with  their  genius  for  free- 
dom :  what  did  four  centuries  of  Roman  rule  do  for  them  ? 
The  historian  Green  answers  :  *  — 

"  Commerce  sprang  up  in  ports  like  that  of  London. 
Agriculture  flourished  till  Britain  became  one  of  the  great 
corn-exporting  countries  of  the  world.  Its  mineral  resources 
were  explored.  .  .  .  The  wealth  of  the  island  grew  fast  during 
centuries  of  unbroken  peace "  ;  but  "  Here,  as  in  Italy  or 
Gaul,  the  population  probably  declined  as  the  estates  of 
the  landed  proprietors  grew  larger,  and  the  cultivators  sank 

*"  A  Short  History  of  the  English  People,"  p.  5. 


43 

into  serfs,  whose  cabins  clustered  round  the  luxurious  villas 
of  their  lords.  The  mines,  if  worked  by  forced  labor,  must 
have  been  a  source  of  endless  oppression.  Town  and  country 
were  alike  crushed  by  heavy  taxation.  .  .  .  Above  all,  the 
purely  despotic  system  of  the  Roman  government,  by  crush- 
ing all  local  independence,  crushed  all  local  vigor.  Men 
forgot  how  to  fight  for  their  country  when  they  forgot  how 
to  govern  it." 

Four  centuries  of  Roman  rule  left  in  England  magnificent 
roads  and  fine  buildings  ;  but  it  left  a  vigorous  people  robbed 
of  their  native  strength  and  a  prey  to  barbarians  whom  they 
could  not  resist.  Can  the  Filipinos  make  head  against  the 
influences  which  the  English  could  not  resist  ? 

How  is  it  with  Spain,  whose  soldiers,  whose  sailors,  whose 
statesmen,  conquered  and  governed  so  large  a  portion  of  the 
world  ?  She,  too,  embarked  in  her  career  with  high  purposes. 
It  was  to  save  men's  souls  that  Isabella  offered  to  pawn  her 
jewels  in  aid  of  Columbus,  and  in  1495  the  pope  issued  his 
proclamation  of  "benevolent  assimilation  "  :  — 

"  You  shall  persuade  the  people  who  inhabit  these  islands 
and  continents  to  accept  the  Christian  faith.  We  impress 
upon  you,  according  to  your  promise,  ...  to  select  honorable 
men,  and  send  them  to  these  continents  and  islands, —  men 
who  fear  God,  who  are  instructed,  clever  and  suitable  for  the 
purpose  of  teaching  the  Catholic  doctrine  to  the  inhabitants, 
and  to  bring  them  up  in  good  habits."  *  Alas  1  these  noble 
aspirations  did  not  live  to  cross  the  sea  and  the  unhappy 
natives  did  not  survive  to  become  Christians.  In  1492  San 
Domingo  had  a  population  of  about  a  million  people.  In 
twenty  years  it  had  sunk  to  thirteen  thousand :  the  rest 
were  dead  or  slaves.  Spain  sent  her  sons,  the  flower  of  her 
manhood,  abroad  to  conquer  the  world.  Some  died  on  the 
sand-dunes  of  Holland,  at  the  hands  of  the  Beggars  of  the 
Sea,  who  ate  their  hearts  in  bitter  hatred.  Some  sank 
beneath  the  waves  of  "  the  narrow  seas  "  when  the  Great 
Armada  perished.  Many  laid  their  bones  in  the  tropics,  or 
lived  to  lose  their  manhood  and  propagate  a  degenerate  race. 

*Bigelow,  "The  Children  of  the  Nations,"  p.  9. 


44 

Where  is  the  region  that  is  better  for  the  civilization  brought 
by  Spain  ?  Where,  after  four  centuries,  is  Spain  herself  ? 

But  England  at  least  has  succeeded.  The  Anglo-Saxon 
wins  where  the  Latin  fails.  Let  us  test  this  assertion.  We 
must  not  overlook,  however,  the  important  distinction  between 
the  self-governing  colonies  of  England  and  her  dependencies, 
like  India.  President  Roosevelt,  in  his  Life  of  Benton,  at  the 
very  beginning  of  the  Spanish  War,  made  this  difference  clear 
in  discussing  the  annexation  of  some  Canadian  provinces  :  — 

"  Of  course,  no  one  would  wish  to  see  these  or  any  other 
settled  communities  now  added  to  our  domain  by  force :  we 
want  no  unwilling  citizens  to  enter  our  Union.  The  time  to 
have  taken  these  lands  was  before  settlers  came  into  them. 
European  nations  war  for  the  possession  of  thickly  settled 
districts,  which,  if  conquered,  will  for  centuries  remain  alien 
and  hostile  to  the  conquerors.  We,  wiser  in  our  generation, 
have  seized  waste  solitudes  that  lay  near  us,  the  limitless 
forests  and  never-ending  plains,  and  the  valleys  of  the  great 
lonely  rivers,  and  have  thrust  our  own  sons  into  them  to  take 
possession." 

It  was  thus  that  England  colonzied  this  country,  Canada, 
Australia,  and  New  Zealand.  These  colonies  choose  their  own 
rulers  and  govern  themselves  as  completely  as  do  the  English. 
Their  connection  with  England  is  nominal ;  and,  if  they  wished 
to  break  the  bond,  they  could  do  so  at  pleasure.  They  possess 
that  peculiar  power  of  an  independent  nation, —  the  power  .to 
impose  a  protective  tariff  upon  imports  from  the  mother 
country.  No  one  proposes  to  give  the  Filipinos  a  government 
like  that  of  Canada.  If  this  were  the  policy  of  the  adminis- 
tration, there  would  be  no  opposition. 

Our  people  will  never  colonize  the  Philippine  Islands.  We 
are  not  overcrowded,  and  there  is  no  pressure  of  population. 
No  American  will  ever  leave  the  pleasant  conditions  of 
his  native  land  to  make  a  home  in  the  Philippines.  He 
may  go  there  for  a  temporary  sojourn,  but  never  to  settle. 
After  centuries  of  British  rule  in  India,  Mr.  Townsend  can 
say  :  "  Not  only  is  there  no  white  race  in  India,  not  only  is 


45 

there  no  white  colony,  but  there  is  no  white  man  who  proposes 
to  remain.  ...  No  ruler  stays  there  to  help  or  criticise  or 
moderate  his  successor.  No  successful  white  soldier  founds 
a  family.  No  white  man  who  makes  a  fortune  builds  a  house 
or  buys  an  estate  for  his  descendants.  The  very  planter,  the 
very  engine-driver,  the  very  foreman  of  works,  departs  before 
he  is  sixty,  leaving  no  child  or  house  or  trace  of  himself 
behind.  No  white  man  takes  root  in  India."  * 

Thus  it  is  likely  to  be  with  us  in  the  Philippines.  Our 
dollars  will  be  there,  but  not  our  people.  Corporations  will 
place  young  men  in  charge  of  their  interests,  who  will  enlist 
in  the  service  for  a  term  of  years,  and  who  will  endeavor  to 
make  as  much  money  in  as  short  a  time  as  possible  that  they 
may  escape  the  sooner.  With  Chinese  labor  under  American 
superintendents,  some  capitalists  of  America  may  grow 
rich,  while  the  great  body  of  the  nation  pays  the  expense 
of  holding  the  Filipinos  down  that  their  business  may  be 
prosecuted  safely. 

The  English  precedents  relied  on  are  Egypt  and  India.  Let 
me  hasten  to  admit  that  England  has  introduced  many  reforms 
into  Egypt,  and  bettered  the  conditions  of  the  people ;  but 
with  what  is  her  administration  compared,  and  what  has  she 
bettered  ?  Egypt  was  a  province  of  the  Turkish  empire, 
suffering  under  the  ills  of  Turkish  administration,  with  a 
people  weakened  by  centuries  of  such  misrule.  This  was  the 
condition  which  England  found,  and  which  she  has  reformed. 
No  one  doubts  that  an  English  governor  is  better  than  a 
Turkish  despot.  But  the  people  learn  self-government  under 
neither. 

INDIA. 

The  rule  of  England  in  Egypt  has  been  brief ;  but  in  India 
it  has  endured  for  some  centuries.  What  is  the  result  upon 
the  people  ?  England  boasts  that  she  has  established  peace 
and  order  throughout  the  great  peninsula,  the  vaunted  pax 
Britannica.  Peace  has  prevailed  for  years,  unbroken  save 
by  the  great  Mutiny  and  by  various  wars  with  nations  and 

*  "  Asia  and  Europe,"  p.  S6. 


46 

tribes  over  which  she  has  extended  her  sway ;  but  is  war  the 
greatest  calamity  which  a  nation  can  know?  Mr.  Digby, 
an  Englishman  of  experience  in  India,  who  has  devoted  years 
to  his  subject,  tells  us  that  the  deaths  by  war  in  the  whole 
world  during  107  years,  from  1793  to  1900,  have  been 
about  5,000,000,  while  the  deaths  from  famine  in  India 
alone  during  10  years,  from  1891  to  1900,  have  been 
19,000,000.  This  horror  is  progressive,  and  constantly  in- 
creases. During  the  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century 
there  were  in  India  five  famines,  costing  perhaps  1,000,000 
lives ;  in  the  second  quarter  there  were  two,  causing  half  as 
great  a  mortality ;  in  the  third  quarter  there  were  six,  causing 
5,000,000  deaths ;  and  in  the  last  quarter  there  were  eigh- 
teen, and  it  is  estimated  that  26,000,000  people  died  of  star- 
vation. In  1880,  said  Sir  William  Hunter,  "there  remain 
forty  million  of  people  who  go  through  life  on  insufficient 
food."  In  1901  an  Indian  publicist  wrote,  "For  nearly  fif- 
teen years  there  has  been  a  continuous  famine  in  India,  owing 
to  high  prices."  The  average  duration  of  human  life  in 
England  is  about  forty  years :  in  India  it  is  twenty-three. 
These  figures  tell  a  ghastly  story.  The  resources  of  England 
are  strained  to  conquer  the  Boers,  but  only  a  trifling  ex- 
penditure in  comparison  is  made  to  save  the  lives  of  men 
whom  they  have  already  conquered. 

The  Indian  administrator  is  prone  to  claim  that  the  Indians 
are  lightly  taxed.  So  they  are,  if  the  rate  per  head  is  taken ; 
but  the  reverse  is  true,  if  the  proportion  of  tax  to  property  is 
considered.  Applying  this  test,  it  would  seem  that  the 
Indian  tax-payer  paid  four  times  as  much  as  the  Scotch  and 
three  times  as  much  as  the  English  subject  of  the  crown.  A 
few  years  ago  it  was  stated  in  Parliament  that  the  income  tax 
in  India  yielded  one-sixtieth  as  much  for  each  million  people 
as  in  England ;  and  the  speaker  added,  "If  this  is  not  con- 
clusive of  the  poverty  of  the  people,  nothing  will  satisfy  the 
most  exacting  mind." 

The  accumulated  wealth  of  India  in  the  days  of  Warren 
Hastings  was  carried  away  by  Englishmen.  Now  her  income 


47 

is  drained  to  England  to  pay  the  interest  on  English  invest- 
ments in  railroads  and  public  works,  and  the  expenses  of  the 
English  administration.  This  drain  is  said  to  be  now  some 
^£30,000,000  a  year.  As  Mill  said  in  his  History  of  India, 
"It  is  an  extraction  of  the  life  blood  from  the  veins  of 
national  industry,  which  no  subsequent  introduction  of  nour- 
ishment is  furnished  to  restore." 

Mr.  Digby's  statements  as  to  the  income  of  the  average 
Indian  are  fortified  by  a  multitude  of  statistics,  and  may  be 
subject  to  correction,  but  they  must  be  so  near  the  truth  as 
to  illustrate  the  condition  of  the  Indian  population.  He  says 
that  the  estimated  income  of  the  people  per  head  in  1850 
was  twopence  a  day,  that  the  official  estimate  in  1882  was  one 
and  a  half  pence  a  day,  and  that  in  1900  it  was  less  than 
three-quarters  of  a  penny  a  day,  and  he  commends  these 
figures  to  the  secretary  of  state  for  India,  who  in  1901  said 
to  the  House  of  Commons,  "  If  it  could  be  shown  that  India 
has  retrograded  in  material  prosperity  under  our  rule,  we 
stand  self-condemned,  and  we  ought  no  longer  to  be  trusted 
with  the  control  of  that  country." 

Mr.  Digby  is  strongly  opposed  to  British  rule  in  India. 
Let  me  quote  an  authority  who  strongly  favors  it,  and  who 
thus  defines  his  standard  :  — 

"  A  prosperous  country  is  one  in  which  the  great  mass  of 
the  inhabitants  are  able  to  procure,  with  moderate  toil,  what 
is  necessary  for  living  human  lives, —  lives  of  frugal  and  as- 
sured comfort.  .  .  .  But  millions  of  peasants  in  India  are 
struggling  to  live  on  half  an  acre.  Their  existence  is  a 
constant  struggle  with  starvation,  ending  too  often  in  defeat. 
Their  difficulty  is  not  to  live  human  lives,- —  lives  up  to  the 
level  of  their  poor  standard  of  comfort, —  but  to  live  at  all, 
and  not  die.  .  .  .  We  may  truly  say  that  in  India,  except  in 
the  irrigated  tracts,  famine  is  chronic, —  endemic."  * 

How  is  it  with  manufacturing  industries  ?  Mr.  Hobson 
quotes  passages  from  various  high  authorities,  of  whom  one 
says,  "  Under  the  pretence  of  free  trade,  England  has  com- 
pelled the  Hindus  to  receive  the  products  of  the  steam  looms 

*"  India  and  its  Problems,"  Lilly,  pp.  284,  285,  quoted  by  J.  A.  Hobson. 


48 

of  Lancashire,  Yorkshire,  Glasgow,  and  at  mere  nominal 
duties,  while  the  hand-wrought  manufactures  of  Bengal  and 
Behar,  beautiful  in  fabric  and  durable  in  wear,  have  had  heavy 
and  almost  prohibitive  duties  imposed  on  their  importation  to 
England."  *.  .  . 

Another  spoke  of  the  policy  thus  :  "  In  India  the  manu- 
facturing power  of  her  people  was  stamped  out  by  protection 
against  her  industries,  and  then  free  trade  was  forced  on  her' 
so  as  to  prevent  a  revival."  * 

Sir  George  Birdwood  described  and  lamented  the  process 
more  than  twenty  years  ago  in  these  words  :  — 

"  But  of  late  these  handicraftsmen,  for  the  sake  of  whose 
work  the  whole  world  has  been  ceaselessly  pouring  bullion 
into  India,  and  who,  for  all  the  marvellous  tissue  they  have 
wrought,  have  polluted  no  rivers,  deformed  no  pleasing  pros- 
pects, nor  poisoned  any  air,  are  being  everywhere  gathered 
from  their  democratic  village  communities,  in  hundreds  and 
thousands,  into  the  colossal  mills  of  Bombay,  to  drudge  in 
gangs,  for  tempting  wages,  at  manufacturing  piece  goods,  in 
the  production  of  which  they  are  no  more  morally  and  intel- 
lectually concerned  than  the  grinder  of  a  barrel-organ  in  the 
tunes  turned  out  from  it."  f 

Have  these  centuries  of  English  rule  elevated  the  Hindus 
as  a  people,  and  are  they  nearer  to  self-government  than  they 
were  when  England's  dominion  began  ?  I  asked  this  question 
of  Sir  Andrew  Clarke,  the  distinguished  administrator  of  the 
Straits  Settlements  and  a  high  authority  on  English  colonial 
government.  He  answered  "  Not  a  bit."  "  Do  they  not 
want  to  govern  themselves?"  I  asked.  In  reply  he  quoted 
the  remark  of  a  native  Hindu  of  high  rank,  who  said,  "I 
suppose,  if  we  were  left  to  govern  ourselves,  my  head  might 
be  the  first  to  roll  in  the  gutter  ;  but  I  feel  it  in  my  heart 
that  I  wish  we  had  the  chance  to  try." 

The  English  have  broken  down  the  little  village  democ- 
racies, the  nurseries  of  self-government ;  and  they  have  suc- 
cessfully excluded  the  native  Hindus  from  all  important  offices 
and  all  substantial  share  in  the  government.  Acts  of  Parlia- 

*  "  Imperialism,"  p.  313.  -f  Ibid.,  p.  310. 


49 

ment  and  proclamations  have  promised  the  Hindus  equal 
opportunities  ;  but,  as  Lord  Lytton,  the  viceroy  of  India,  said 
in  1878,  "We  have  had  to  choose  between  prohibiting  them 
and  cheating  them,  and  we  have  chosen  the  least  straightfor- 
ward course." 

It  is  unnecessary  to  multiply  testimony.  No  child  learns 
to  walk  in  the.  arms  of  its  mother,  and  no  people  learns  to 
govern  itself  except  by  doing  it.  Centuries  of  subjection 
weaken  their  initiative,  as  the  muscle  which  is  never  used 
becomes  atrophied.  Men  work  upward  by  their  own  exer- 
tions, and  learn  by  their  own  mistakes.  Failure  is  a  better 
teacher  than  success.  When  every  avenue  to  ambition  is 
closed,  a  people  soon  decays. 

No  one  has  stated  this  law  of  human  nature  better  than 
Macaulay :  ' '  There  is  only  one  cure  for  the  evils  which 
newly  acquired  freedom  produces,  and  that  cure  is  freedom. 
When  a  prisoner  leaves  his  cell,  he  cannot  bear  the  light  of 
day,  he  is  unable  to  discriminate  colors  or  recognize  faces ;  but 
the  remedy  is  not  to  remand  him  into  his  dungeon,  but  to 
accustom  him  to  the  rays  of  the  sun.  The  blaze  of  truth  and 
liberty  may  at  first  dazzle  and  bewilder  nations  which  have 
become  half -blind  in  the  house  of  bondage;  but,  let  them 
gaze  on,  and  they  will  soon  be  able  to  bear  it.  In  a  few 
years,  men  learn  to  reason ;  the  extreme  violence  of  opinion 
subsides;  hostile  theories  correct  each  other;  the  scattered 
elements  of  truth  cease  to  conflict  and  begin  to  coalesce ;  and 
at  length  a  system  of  justice  and  order  is  educed  out  of 
chaos.  Many  politicians  of  our  time  are  in  the  habit  of  lay- 
ing it  down  as  a  self-evident  proposition  that  no  people  ought 
to  be  free  until  they  are  fit  to  use  their  freedom.  The  maxim 
is  worthy  of  the  fool  in  the  old  story,  who  resolved  not  to  go 

into  the  water  till  he  had  learned  to  swim !     If  men  are  to 

« 

wait  for  liberty  till  they  become  wise  and  good  in  slavery, 
they  may,  indeed,  wait  forever ! ' ' 

Says  Bernard  Holland :  "  British  rule  tends  to  destroy 
native  originality,  vigor,  and  initiative.  How  to  replace  that 
which  our  rule  takes  away  is  the  great  Indian  problem."  It 


50 

has  caused,  in  the  words  of  another,  "  the  gradual  decay,  .  .  . 
the  slow  death,  ...  of  Indian  art,  Indian  culture,  Indian 
military  spirit." 

Let  me  give  you  in  conclusion  the  testimony  of  two 
Englishmen  who  believe  in  the  empire,  but  who  see  its 
results. 

Said  Professor  Seeley  of  the  Indian  government :  "  At  best, 
we  think  of  it  as  a  good  specimen  of  a  bad  political  system. 
We  are  not  disposed  to  be  proud  of  the  succession  of  the 
Grand  Mogul.  We  doubt  whether,  with  all  the  merits  of  our 
administration,  the  subjects  of  it  are  happy.  We  may  even 
doubt  whether  our  rule  is  preparing  them  for  a  happier  con- 
dition, whether  it  may  not  be  sinking  them  lower  in  misery  ; 
and  we  have  our  misgivings  that  perhaps  a  genuine  Asiatic 
government,  and  still  more  a  national  government  springing 
up  out  of  the  Hindu  population  itself,  might,  in  the  long  run, 
be  more  beneficial,  because  more  congenial,  though  perhaps 
less  civilized,  than  such  a  foreign  unsympathetic  government 
as  our  own."  * 

And  Meredith  Townsend  says:  "Beneath  the  small  film 
of  white  men  who  make  up  the  '  Indian  empire '  boils 
or  sleeps  away  a  sea  of  dark  men,  incurably  hostile,  who 
await  with  patience  the  day  when  the  ice  shall  break  and  the 
ocean  regain  its  power  of  restless  movement  under  its  own 
laws.  As  yet  there  is  no  sign  that  the  British  are  accom- 
plishing more  than  the  Romans  accomplished  in  Britain,  that 
they  will  spread  any  permanently  successful  ideas,  or  that 
they  will  found  anything  whatever.  It  is  still  true  that,  if 
they  departed  or  were  driven  out,  they  would  leave  behind 
them,  as  the  Romans  did  in  Britain,  splendid  roads,  many 
useless  buildings,  an  increased  weakness  in  the  subject 
'  people, '  and  a  memory  which  in  a  century  of  new  events 
would  be  extinct. ' '  f 

His  conclusion  is, — 

' '  The  chasm  between  the  brown  man  and  the  white  man  is 
unfathomable,  has  existed  in  all  ages,  and  exists  still  every- 
where. ' ' 

*"The  Expansion  of  England,'1  p.  273,  quoted  by  Mr.  Hobson. 
t"  Asia  and  Europe,"  pp.  26,  97. 


This  is  the  verdict  of  Englishmen  on  the  results  of  English 
rule  in  Asia,  which  has  lasted  for  centuries.  They  are  con- 
demning not  the  foundation,  which  was  laid  in  blood  and 
rapine,  but  the  edifice  which  has  been  patiently  reared  by 
hundreds  of  conscientious  men.  It  is  a  confession  of  failure. 


HAVE  WE  SUCCEEDED  ? 

But  we  are  confidently  told  that  we  have  succeeded  already. 
"No  policy  ever  entered  into  by  the  American  people  has 
vindicated  itself  in  a  more  signal  manner  than  the  policy  of 
holding  the  Philippines."  The  policy  of  freedom  adopted  by 
the  men  who  founded  the  republic,  the  policy  of  peace  with 
foreign  nations,  the  various  policies  under  which  we  have 
grown  in  numbers  and  prosperity,  have,  in  comparison,  but 
little  claim  to  our  admiration. 

"  The  triumph  of  our  arms  —  above  all,  the  triumph  of 
our  laws  and  principles  —  has  come  sooner  than  we  had  any 
right  to  expect." 

The  triumph  of  our  arms  has  come,  if  triumph  is  the 
word  which  fitly  describes  the  victory  won  by  this  mighty 
nation,  with  every  resource  of  modern  war,  over  the  weak, 
undisciplined,  poorly  armed  men  who  have  died  for  the  free- 
dom of  their  native  land.  But  has  it  come  sooner  than  we 
had  a  right  to  expect  ?  If  so,  what  shall  we  say  of  the  official 
despatches  and  reports  which  have  assured  us  from  the  very 
outbreak  of  hostilities  that  the  end  was  at  hand  ?  Did  the 
administration  seriously  expect  that  it  would  take  more  than 
125,000  men  and  more  than  four  years  to  conquer  "a  single 
tribe  out  of  eighty  or  more  inhabiting  the  archipelago  ?  "  If 
so,  these  expectations  were  carefully  concealed  from  the 
American  people. 

Let  us  concede  the  triumph  of  our  arms ;  but  where  shall 
we  look  for  the  triumph  of  our  principles  and  our  laws  ?  Cer- 
tainly, the  triumphant  principles  are  not  to  be  found  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  or  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  One  might 


52 

ask  for  a  statement  of  any  principle  ever  cherished  by  this 
people  which  has  not  been  trodden  under  foot. 

This  policy  "  has  vindicated  itself"!  What  have  been  its 
results  ? 

We  have  destroyed  a  large  part  of  the  Filipino  people. 
General  Bell  said  that  in  two  years  before  May,  1901,  "one- 
sixth  of  the  natives  of  Luzon  have  either  been  killed  or  had 
died  of  dengue  fever."  This  was  comparatively  early ;  and 
a  year  later  an  official  report,  as  to  one  province,  stated  that 
the  population  had  been  reduced  by  one-third.  After  this 
date  Samar  was  made  "a  howling  wilderness  "  under  General 
Smith,  and  General  J.  F.  Bell  dealt  with  Batangas  as  follows. 
I  quote  his  words  :  — 

"  I  am  now  assembling  in  the  neighborhood  of  2,500  men 
who  will  be  used  in  columns  of  about  fifty  men  each.  I  take 
so  large  a  command  for  the  purpose  of  thoroughly  searching 
each  ravine,  valley,  and  mountain  peak  for  insurgents  and  for 
food,  expecting  to  destroy  everything  I  find  outside  of  towns. 
All  able-bodied  men  will  be  killed  or  captured.  Old  men, 
women,  and  children  will  be  sent  to  towns.  This  movement 
begins  January  i,  by  which  time  I  hope  to  have  nearly  all  the 
food  supply  in  the  towns.  These  people  need  a  thrashing,  to 
teach  them  some  good  common  sense ;  and  they  should  have 
it  for  the  good  of  all  concerned." 

We  have  laid  waste  their  fields,  we  have  destroyed  both  crops 
and  cultivators,  we  have  burned  villages  and  towns  leaving 
the  people  homeless,  we  have  adopted  the  reconcentration 
policy  of  General  Weyler,  and  have  borrowed  mediaeval 
tortures  from  Spain,  in  order  to  aid  our  policy  of  conquest. 
I  cannot  add  to  the  picture  of  resulting  ruin  which  Sec- 
retary Root  has  drawn  in  his  annual  report. 

We  found  7,000,000  of  people  friendly  and  prosperous. 
We  have  reduced  them  to  straits  like  these.  We  have  de- 
stroyed more  Filipino  life  and  property  in  four  years  than 
Spain  in  her  centuries  of  rule.  Is  this  success  ? 

We  have  sent  to  the  islands  nearly  125,000  of  our  citizens, 
of  whom  many  have  been  killed,  many  more  disabled  by 


53 

wounds  and  disease,  many  made  insane,  and  a  very  large  num- 
ber so  demoralized  as  to  regard  torture,  reconcentration,  and 
the  slaughter  of  prisoners  and  non-combatants  as  right  I 
Is  this  success  ? 

We  have  spent  hundreds  of  millions,  drawn  from  the  taxes 
of  the  people,  on  this  war ;  and  the  end  is  not  yet.  Three 
millions  more  are  asked  now  to  save  the  Filipinos  from  starva- 
tion, and  the  Commissioners  tell  us  that  conditions  will  be 
worse  before  they  are  better.  Is  this  success  ? 

We  have  stricken  down  the  first  republican  government 
ever  established  in  Asia,  and  have  turned  millions  of  cordial 
friends  into  bitter  enemies.  Is  this  success  ? 

Finally,  we  have  abandoned  the  ideals  and  principles  of 
liberty  which  we  have  cherished  from  our  birth,  and  have 
adopted  the  principles  and  practices  of  tyranny,  which  we 
have  always  condemned.  I  ask  again,  Is  this  success  ? 

We  have  proved  abundantly  the  truth  of  Lincoln's  words  : 
"  No  man  is  good  enough  to  govern  another  without  that 
other's  consent " ;  and  the  more  we  extol  the  character  and 
purposes  of  those  who  have  done  these  things,  the  more  com- 
plete is  the  proof. 

What  do  we  gain  ?  Commercial  expansion  ?  If  the  whole 
commerce  of  the  Orient  were  offered  us  at  such  a  price,  had 
we  the  right  to  pay  it  ?  But  such  methods  do  not  extend 
trade.  With  the  Filipinos  as  our  friends,  prospering  with 
our  help,  our  commerce  with  them  would  have  been  as  valu- 
able as  it  is  capable  of  being ;  but  commerce  is  not  promoted 
by  ruining  and  killing  our  customers.  I  will  not  weary  you 
with  figures ;  but  the  experience  of  England  and  every  other 
nation  has  shown  that  tropical  trade  has  never  paid  the  cost  of 
tropical  conquest,  and  nothing  is  more  completely  disproved 
than  the  claim  that  trade  follows  the  flag. 

No,  our  policy  has  not  succeeded.  It  has  failed,  and  its 
failure  is  written  in  blood  on  every  fold  of  the  flag  which  we 
loved  to  call  "  the  flag  of  the  free."  It  is  written  on  the 
fresh  graves,  the  ruined  homes,  and  the  barren  fields  of  the 
conquered  islands.  It  is  written  in  the  sullen  hearts  of  the 


54 

Filipinos,  who  cannot  but  remember  our  cruelties,  and,  in  the 
President's  own  words,  "  will  for  centuries  remain  alien  and 
hostile  to  the  conquerors."  It  is  written  also  in  the  hard- 
ened hearts  of  our  own  countrymen,  who  have  forgotten 
their  ideals  and  have  learned  to  tolerate  and  to  approve 
what  they  have  always  execrated. 

"  The  Moving  Finger  writes  ;  and,  having  writ, 
Moves  on,  nor  all  your  Piety  nor  Wit 
Can  lure  it  back  to  cancel  half  a  Line, 
Nor  all  your  Tears  wash  out  a  Word  of  it." 

But  we  are  told,  "  These  things  are  past,  and  will  soon  be 
forgotten."  So  men  have  always  hoped  of  their  misdeeds. 
Let  me  turn  to  another  page  of  history.  Centuries  ago  Pizarro 
and  Cortez  descended  on  the  Peruvians  and  Mexicans,  slaugh- 
tered them,  robbed  them  of  their  treasures,  visited  them  with 
the  extremities  of  war,  annexed  their  countries  to  the  domin- 
ions of  Spain,  and  returned,  loaded  with  spoil,  to  receive  the 
applause  of  their  countrymen.  Long  afterward  the  galleons  of 
Spain  continued  to  carry  gold  and  silver  from  Mexico  and  Peru 
to  fill  the  coffers  of  the  king.  The  Peruvians  and  Mexicans 
spoke  no  language  that  any  European  could  understand.  No 
cable,  no  reporter,  no  newspaper,  no  mail,  carried  to  Europe 
any  story  of  their  wrongs.  They  were  more  remote  than  any 
corner  of  the  world  to-day.  Their  voices  could  not  reach 
across  the  seas  to  tell  their  woes. 

Yet  there  is  not  a  school-boy  to-day  who  does  not  know 
what  they  suffered,  and  has  not  learned  to  hate  their  con- 
querors. Peru  and  Mexico  long  ago  ceased  to  be  territory 
of  Spain.  The  treasures  which  they  poured  into  her  lap 
have  long  been  spent ;  but  there  remains  upon  the  flag  of 
Spain  the  deep  red  stain  which  Pizarro  and  Cortez  left 
there,  and  the  whole  Spanish  nation  has  shared  the  disgrace. 
Think  you  that,  if  this  voiceless  people  could  make  their 
woes  known  across  the  ages  and  across  the  centuries,  the 
deeds  of  Americans  in  Luzon  and  Samar  are  so  soon  for- 
gotten ?  We  know  them,  even  though  we  dare  not  admit 


55 

them,  and  the  world  knows  them ;  and  we  may  be  sure  that 
they  will  be  remembered  as  long  and  as  far  as  the  deeds  of 
Pizarro  and  Cortez.  May  the  stain  on  our  flag  not  prove  as 
indelible ! 

THE  TRUE  POLICY. 

There  is  but  one  remedy  for  the  wrongs  we  have  done. 
We  cannot  recall  the  dead  ;  but  we  can  do  justice  to  the  living, 
as  a  great  nation  should.  If  we  have  been  wrong,  let  us  not 
adopt  the  helpless  attitude,  and  say,  "  We  are  sorry  we  began ; 
but,  being  in,  we  must  persist."  Must  we,  because  we  have 
entered  upon  the  wrong  path,  pursue  it  to  the  bitter  end 
rather  than  retrace  our  steps  ?  "  There  are  three  short  and 
simple  words,"  says  Lowell,  "  the  hardest  of  all  to  pronounce 
in  any  language  (and  I  suspect  they  were  no  easier  before 
the  confusion  of  tongues),  but  which  no  man  or  nation  that 
cannot  utter  can  claim  to  have  arrived  at  manhood.  Those 
words  are  '/  was  wrong.'  "  Shall  we  shrink  from  this  test  of 
our  manhood  ? 

Our  true  course  is  to  give  the  Filipinos  their  indepen- 
dence. Self-government  is  the  right  of  every  nation  because 
no  other  surely  regards  the  interests  of  the  governed.  Men 
are  essentially  selfish,  and  power  is  always  used  to  benefit 
him  who  wields  it.  The  king  aims  to  preserve  and  strengthen 
his  dynasty.  The  oligarchy  clings  to  its  privileges  at  the 
expense  of  the  people.  The  "  boss "  governs  in  his  own 
interest.  It  is  only  when  the  power  is  in  the  hands  of 
the  people  that  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  people  are 
secure,  and  this  is  the  truth  which  the  founders  of  this 
nation  declared.  We  have  the  precedent  of  Cuba ;  and,  if 
there  is  a  difference,  it  is  in  favor  of  the  Filipinos,  for  they  had 
a  government  fully  organized  and  in  successful  operation 
everywhere  outside  our  lines  till  we  destroyed  it,  while  the 
Cubans  had  theirs  to  organize.  Why  should  we  not  give 
the  Filipinos  the  same  opportunity  that  we  are  proud  to  have 
given  the  Cubans  ? 

It  is  said  that  they  are  divided  into  many  tribes,  and  that 


56 

they  cannot  govern  themselves.  The  answer  is  that  they 
united  against  Spain  and  against  us,  and  that  they  did  govern 
themselves  with  entire  success  till  we  interfered.  If  it  was 
safe  to  leave  the  sultan  of  the  Sulus  to  govern  his  people, 
why  not  let  the  accepted  government  of  the  other  islands  re- 
tain its  power  ? 

I  think  it  is  Professor  Jenks  who,  in  his  recent  report, 
said  that  the  Filipinos  were  unfit  to  govern  themselves  be- 
cause "they  are  readily  bribed."  How  should  we  Anglo- 
Saxons  stand  this  test  ?  Shall  we  disfranchise  St.  Louis, 
many  of  whose  elected  governors  are  now  in  prison  or  on 
the  way  to  it  for  bribery  ?  Shall  we  deal  likewise  with  Min- 
neapolis, whose  mayor  and  chief  of  police  administered  a 
whole  system  of  corruption  ?  Shall  every  State  now  repre- 
sented in  the  Senate  by  a  man  who  bought  his  seat  be  driven 
from  the  family  of  States  ?  Is  bribery  unknown  in  Illinois, 
Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  and  New  York?  What  say  the  empty 
chairs  at  Washington  which  wait  the  result  of  the  effort 
made  by  Mr.  Addicks  to  buy  the  State  of  Delaware  ?  What 
municipal  legislature,  what  State  legislature,  indeed,  is  to-day 
above  suspicion,  if  great  corporations  are  seeking  legislation  ? 
Let  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Chicago,  Cincinnati,  Boston, 
tell  us  whether  bribery  is  unknown  to  them,  and,  when  these 
questions  are  answered,  we  may  decide  how  great  is  the  mote 
in  our  brother's  eye. 

But  it  is  said  they  would  kill  each  other,  and  that  anarchy 
would  ensue  if  we  left  the  islands.  When  our  troops 
reached  the  islands,  there  was  no  anarchy  and  the  Filipinos 
were  governing  themselves.  The  only  anarchy  that  has 
been  known  there  is  the  anarchy  which  we  introduced.  It  is 
pure .  assumption  that  the  Filipinos  would  have  engaged  in 
internecine  war.  The  Japanese,  also  Malays,  and  far  less 
civilized  than  the  Filipinos  when  we  first  knew  them,  have 
grown  in  fifty  years  into  the  greatest  Eastern  power.  We 
did  not  feel  bound  to  annex  them,  lest  they  should  kill 
each  other,  nor  to  stop  such  wars  as  they  have  known 
since.  We  have  aided  them  by  teaching  them  here  and  in 


57 

Japan,  and  we  have  let  them  develop  on  their  own  lines. 
Why  should  not  their  fellow  Malays  be  as  successful  ? 

It  may  be  doubted  whether  Asiatics  are  more  prone  to  civil 
war  than  Europeans,  or  whether  in  proportion  to  their  num- 
bers more  men  have  been  killed  in  any  Asiatic  country  than 
fell  in  the  wars  of  the  Roses,  in  the  Revolution,  in  the  sub- 
jugation of  Ireland,  and  in  the  wars  with  Scotland,  while  the 
British  nation  was  in  making.  When  we  reflect  that  the 
Crimean  War,  the  wars  between  France  and  Austria,  Prussia 
and  Austria,  Germany  and  France,  Russia  and  Turkey,  and 
our  own  Civil  War,  to  say  nothing  of  rtiany  minor  wars,  have 
occurred  within  fifty  years,  can  we  justly  claim  that  we  are 
more  peaceful  than  the  Asiatics,  or  deny  to  them  for  this 
reason  the  independence  which  we  claim  for  ourselves  ?  Se- 
vastopol, Gettysburg,  Solferino,  Sadowa,  Sedan,  Plevna, —  what 
are  our  associations  with  these  names  ?  Asiatic  nations  have 
endured  as  long  as  man's  memory  extends,  undestroyed  by 
civil  war.  Why  should  we  assume  that  the  Filipinos  would 
develop  a  passion  for  slaughtering  each  other  which  would 
exceed  the  measure  allowed  to  civilized  nations  ?  Why  should 
we  not  have  waited  till  interference  became  necessary,  and 
not  ourselves  begin  the  killing  ?  They  could  not  in  fifty 
years,  with  their  skill  in  arms,  have  done  themselves  such 
damage  as  we  have  done  them  in  four.  , 

But  some  other  nation  might  interfere ;  and,  to  protect 
our  lambs  from  other  wolves,  we  must  turn  wolf  ourselves. 

This,  again,  is  a  pure  assumption,  and  one  often  resorted 
to  as  an  excuse  for  aggression.  If  no  nation  interfered  to 
help  them  in  their  struggle  with  us,  it  was  either  indifference 
or  fear  of  us  that  prevented.  Had  we  simply  made  it  known 
to  foreign  powers  that  we  wished  the  independence  of  the 
islands  respected,  the  same  influences  would  have  been 
effectual.  Our  wish  has  protected  this  continent  against 
European  oppression,  and  it  would  have  been  equally  potent 
to  protect  the  Philippines.  Had  a  show  of  force  been  deemed 
necessary,  far  fewer  ships  and  soldiers  could  have  held  the 
islands  with  the  Filipinos  as  cordial  allies  than  we  need 


58 

now  to  repress  the  Filipinos  alone.  As  we  never  tried  to 
secure  their  independence  by  international  agreement,  we 
have  no  right  to  assume  that  the  attempt  would  have  failed. 
We  cannot  excuse  ourselves  by  assuming  a  danger  that  never 
existed,  even  if  we  can  justify  ourselves  in  doing  what  we 
think  no  other  nation  should  have  done.  A  war  to  preserve 
Filipino  independence  would  have  been  philanthropy :  a  war 
to  destroy  it  was  a  crime.  Our  plain  duty  now  is  to  re- 
store it. 

To  Hawaiians  and  Porto  Ricans  should  be  given  at  once  all 
the  rights  of  American  citizens,  and  we  should  either  in  the 
near  future  admit  these  territories  as  States  adopting  the 
policy  pursued  with  Florida  and  Louisiana,  or  contemplate 
their  ultimate  independence.  Their  present  position  cannot 
be  permanent. 

How  WILL  OUR  POLICY  AFFECT  OURSELVES  ? 

"  Those  who  deny  freedom  to  others  deserve  it  not  for  them- 
selves, and  under  a  just  God  cannot  long  retain  it." 

Are  the  words  of  Lincoln  true  ?  They  have  the  support  of 
much  human  experience.  A  republic  finds  its  only  secure 
foundation  in  the  belief  of  the  people  that  men  have  equal 
rights.  Once  shatter  that  belief  —  once  teach  them  that  the 
stronger  or  the  wiser  or  the  better  men  have  the  right  to  rule 
others  against  their  will,  and  the  stronger  are  easily  persuaded 
that  they  are  also  the  wiser  and  the  better.  Let  them  once 
see  the  easy  methods  of  despotism  applied  to  one  part  of  the 
people  under  their  flag,  and  they  ask  themselves  why  they 
should  not  apply  the  same  methods  to  others  whom  they  dis- 
like or  distrust. 

There  comes  a  time  in  the  history  of  most  governments 
when  internal  differences  make  men  feel  insecure.  Let  me 
illustrate  my  meaning  by  an  extract  from  a  letter  written  by 
Guizot  to  Henry  Reeve  after  Napoleon  III.  had  overthrown 
the  French  Republic.  He  wrote  :  — 

"  The  great  bulk  of  the  people,  those  to  whom  their  private 
interest  is  the  sole  consideration,  are  satisfied.  The  expecta- 


59 

tion  of  the  crisis  of  1852  weighed  upon  these  interests  like 
a  nightmare.  The  president  delivered  them  from  it :  he  is 
fighting  against  socialism  and  demagogism.  By  his  triumph, 
manufacturers,  merchants,  honest  artisans  and  peasants,  may 
look  for  some  security  in  their  work  and  business  for  some 
time  to  come.  They  ask  nothing  more  of  him." 

Is  there  nothing  in  this  line  of  thought  which  seems  famil- 
iar to  you  ? 

Within  a  few  years  the  Southern  States  have  disfranchised 
a  large  body  of  voters.  It  was  accomplished  with  apparent 
ease,  and  it  is  justified  by  those  who  supported  it  on  the 
ground  that  the  interests  of  the  community  required  it.  It 
is  certainly  possible  that  this  precedent  may  be  followed 
in  other  States,  and  that  bodies  of  naturalized  voters  or  of 
ignorant  voters  may  be  disfranchised  for  a  like  reason.  It  is 
not  inconceivable  that  a  large  campaign  fund  might  be  pro- 
vided, and  that  the  very  class  whose  rights  were  attacked 
might  follow  the  example  of  Esau. 

The  process  of  changing  the  beliefs  of  a  nation  is  slow ; 
but  are  not  the  evidences  of  such  a  change  about  us  ?  Our 
legislatures  no  longer  command  our  respect.  A  few  years 
ago  the  House  of  Representatives  "ceased  to  be  a  delibera- 
tive body,"  as  Mr.  Reed  described  the  result  of  his  own  rules. 
This  great  arena,  in  which  the  representatives  of  the  nation 
assemble  to  discuss  the  affairs  of  us  all,  is  no  longer  the  home 
of  free  speech.  A  few  men  decide  what  the  House  shall  do, 
who  shall  speak,  and  how  long  their  speeches  shall  occupy. 
It  is  a  significant  change.  It  is  common  report  that  in  some 
States  senators  of  the  United  States  determine  in  advance 
how  the  legislature  shall  be  organized,  and  how  it  shall  deal 
with  the  measures  before  it.  Where  the  "boss"  is  well  es- 
tablished, there  is  to-day  little  government  by  the  people. 
The  voter  trusts  the  party,  the  party  surrenders  to  the 
organization,  the  organization  obeys  the  "boss."  This  ten- 
dency to  a  "one-man  power"  is  suggestive. 

It  is  astonishing  how  commonly  in  private  conversation 
men  express  the  belief  that  republican  government  is  a  failure, 
and  the  tendency  to  vest  larger  powers  in  executive  officers 


6o 

and  to  curb  in  various  ways  the  power  of  the  legislature  is 
apparent  everywhere. 

When  Guizot  asked  Lowell  how  long  our  republic  would 
last,  he  replied,  "  As  long  as  the  ideas  of  the  men  who  founded 
it  continue  dominant."  They  are  the  foundation  of  our  gov- 
ernment, and  whatever  weakens  them  endangers  it.  We  have 
learned  how  the  republics  of  the  ancient  world  successively 
fell,  and  we  have  seen  the  overthrow  of  a  republic  in  France. 
To  meet  our  problems  here,  to  restrain  the  power  of  capital 
and  the  excesses  of  labor,  we  need  a  deeply  rooted  faith  in 
our  own  institutions,  a  passionate  love  of  justice.  We  cannot 
destroy  the  ideals  of  the  nation :  we  cannot  insist  that  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  is  wrong :  we  cannot  govern 
millions  of  men  outside  the  Constitution  :  we  cannot  hold  a 
single  Filipino,  like  Mabini,  a  prisoner  without  trial  or  sen- 
tence,—  and  hope  to  preserve  in  full  strength  that  faith  in  the 
equal  rights  of  men  which  is  the  soul  of  this  nation.  Every 
man  who  defends  these  things  has  begun  to  lose  his  belief ; 
and,  while  years  may  elapse  without  a  change  in  the  external 
form  of  government,  no  one  can  tell  when  some  crisis  will 
find  our  people  as  glad  to  welcome  a  strong  man  as  the 
French  were  to  receive  a  new  Napoleon.  Let  us  remember 
that  Dreyfus  in  his  cage  on  Devil's  Island,  with  the  whole 
army  against  him  but  with  justice  on  his  side,  was  strong 
enough  to  shake  the  French  Republic.  Let  us  cling  fast 
to  our  faith,  and  regard  him  who  would  weaken  it  as  an  enemy 
to  his  country. 

The  time  will  come,  if  this  republic  is  to  endure,  when  an 
overwhelming  public  sentiment  will  make  itself  felt,  and  we 
shall  do  what  every  true  American  in  his  heart  would  like  to 
have  his  country  do, —  give  the  Filipinos  their  freedom,  and 
thus  regain  that  proud  position  among  the  nations  of  the 
world  which  we  have  lost,  the  moral  leadership  of  mankind, 
becoming  again,  in  the  words  of  Aguinaldo,  "tne  great 
nation,  North  America,  Cradle  of  Liberty,"  beneath  whose 
flag,  wherever  it  floats  in  this-  wide  world,  there  is  no  room 
for  a  subject,  but  a  sure  refuge  for  every  man  who  desires 
that  freedom  which  is  the  birthright  of  every  human  being. 


"'" 


II  III  11111 II 

T5    000931 


^^^H 
'tjunyifrft 


